Nuclear Power: Totally Unqualified to Combat Climate Change
An Open Letter from the World Business Academy to leading climatologist Dr. James Hansen regarding his advocacy of nuclear power as a solution to global warming.
by Rinaldo S. Brutoco
2020 Alameda Padre Serra Suite 135, Santa Barbara, CA 93103 (805) 892-4600 • www.worldbusiness.org © World Business Academy 2014 January 27, 2014
Re: Nuclear Power as an Agent in Combatting Climate Change
Dear Professor Hansen:
I am the founder and President of the World Business Academy,1 a non-profit business think tank established in 1987 with a mission to (i) explore the role and responsibility of business in relation to critical moral, environmental, and social issues of our day; (ii) inspire the business community to assume responsibility for the whole of society; and (iii) assist those in business who share our values to take greater responsibility for positive social outcomes from business initiatives. The Academy’s projects and numerous publications take on today’s challenges including environmental degradation; the shift away from dirty energy and toward clean, renewable energy; and the existential threat posed by climate change. In fact, the Academy has had an active Energy Task Force working continuously on these issues since 1997. Academy Fellows, representing some of the best and brightest men and women shaping today’s global landscape, have analyzed, reported and predicted the transforming paradigm shifts in business and society.2
My colleagues and I at the World Business Academy have followed your climate activism for many years and your on-going campaign to restrain the coal and oil industries with great interest. Your research, congressional testimony, and activism to address climate change has brought this very real global threat into the public consciousness. Thank You for setting the stage to develop a strategy for preserving human civilization as we know it and the sentient species who inhabit the biosphere. Your latest study, “Assessing ‘Dangerous Climate Change’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature,” has further articulated a higher, more urgent imperative for immediate climate remediation. 3
1 World Business Academy, http://worldbusiness.org. 2 http://worldbusiness.org/about/fellows/ 3 Hansen J., Kharecha P., Sato M., Masson-Delmotte V., Ackerman F., et al. (2013), “Assessing ‘Dangerous Climate Change’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature,” PLoS ONE 8(12): e81648. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081648, December 3, 2013.
Page 1
These findings also appear to be confirmed by The Geological Society, who in a December 2013 addendum to its 2010 climate change report, finds that “[r]ecent research has given rise to the concept of ‘Earth System sensitivity’, which also takes account of slow acting factors like the decay of large ice sheets and the operation of the full carbon cycle, to estimate the full sensitivity of the Earth System to a doubling of CO2. It is estimated that this could be double the climate sensitivity.”4
The World Business Academy agrees with the substantive findings from these reports and is firmly committed to implementing the most expeditious path towards (i) eliminating or mitigating all sources of carbon and methane emissions and (ii) remediating ambient CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels. After 15 years of research, the World Business Academy has approached this issue from a neutral standpoint and determined that due to cumulative, long-term thawing of the permafrost region and Albedo Effect impacts, the global environment is deep in a negative feedback loop exacerbated by increasing glacial and ice sheet runoff. Even if we were to achieve zero carbon emissions tomorrow, it would be too late for the global environment to self-remediate within the recognizable future without active human intervention in the form of various geoengineering solutions to supplement a zero carbon emission approach. As you know, CO2 is already at 406ppm globally and is shooting perilously upward on an increasing trajectory. This will prove non-survivable for the mass of humanity trapped by a climate-induced “insanity” that will likely surprise us with its ferocity in challenging human civilization.
As was noted in the final finding of fact in the most recent IPCC report, a reduction of CO2 by more than 100% is required to begin to bring the planet back to stability and safety.5 Without a reversal of CO2 emissions, we are approaching the tipping point where sequestered methane deposits located beneath the ice tundra and ocean depths are exposed, resulting in a massive release (rather than the constant “tickle” we are now experiencing) that will exponentially increase the resources needed to reverse the climate crisis. In short, the human race does not have the luxury of a “do over” when formulating climate strategy. We have to begin reversing the increasing levels of CO2 and ambient methane right now. We are out of time!
Given the urgency of the climate related issues you champion, with which we are in total agreement, we are nonetheless deeply vexed with your proposal to embrace nuclear power in fighting climate change. As delineated in a joint letter published on November 3rd by you, Kenneth Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel, and Tom Wigley,6 it appears that you may not be as fully informed about nuclear fission as you are informed about climate change. We would like to assist with developing a greater knowledge base about nuclear issues out of respect for the incredible scientific integrity you clearly possess.
4Summerhayes, C.P., Cann, J.W. Wolff, E.W., et al, “An addendum to the Geological Society Statement on Climate Change: Evidence from the Geological Record,” The Geological Society, December 2013. 5 IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, p. 26. 6 “Top climate change scientists' letter to policy influencers,” CNN World, November 3, 2013.
Page 2
A letter, dated January 6, 2014, has already been sent to you by The Civil Society Institute and Nuclear Information and Resource Service which was co-signed by over 300 organizations world-wide, rebutting the assumptions set forth in your November 3rd letter and presenting arguments against the use of nuclear power to mitigate climate change.7 The World Business Academy was a contributing signatory to the CSI/NIRS letter and proposes in this communication to expand on those arguments and provide additional reference materials in support of our assertions.
My first book on nuclear energy, “Profiles in Power,” was co-authored with Professor Jerry Brown of the Academy and was published in 1997 by the textbook division of Simon & Schuster. From that time forward, the Academy has maintained a permanent research effort on virtually every aspect of nuclear power, has published very frequently on the subject, and has continuously sought solutions for society to mitigate the most harmful side effects of nuclear fission. We are hopeful that further elaboration of the challenges associated with nuclear power will persuade you to embrace more economic, more readily available, and more certain renewable energy technologies which will surpass the nuclear industry’s alleged ability to assist in mitigating climate change without any harmful side effects. All that we ask is that you give what follows a fair and impartial review. We are confident that, as a scientist with an outstanding global reputation, an impartial review will speak to you more convincingly than the rationale in support of nuclear power asserted by some of your climate change colleagues.
It is our contention that those who tout nuclear power as a carbon-free solution to global warming are missing the forest and the trees. First, the forest: nuclear power plants continuously emit low levels of cancer-causing strontium-90 radiation during “normal” operations, and higher levels when there are serious problems such as the continuing leakage of radioactive water from the tsunami-damaged reactors at Fukushima, or the radiation leak that lead to the instantaneous closure of the San Onofre nuclear reactor in Southern California in January 20128. Today, even as radiation levels surge in Japan, media pundits discuss the dangers of radiation as if radiation sickness were limited to instances in which people experience nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, or death. This is false. A host of studies show that radioactive emissions of deadly strontium-90 during nuclear plants’ routine operations increase cancer rates among those who live near the plants, especially in women and children.9 (See Appendix A,
7 Civil Society Institute/Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Letter dated January 6, 2014, http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/hansenletter1614.pdf. 8 The World Business Academy was the only business group that participated as a state-authorized Intervener in the hearings which lead to the permanent closure of the San Onofre reactor in Orange County California on June 7, 2013, and continues to appear before the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) as an Intervener seeking to recover $1.5 billion dollars from Southern California Edison for its extraordinary overcharges to ratepayers and for its failure to tell the truth to either the CPUC or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) regarding the substitution of faulty steam generator units that were not “like kind” exchanges. The NRC in late December, 2013 issued a citation against Southern California Edison unmasking its illegal conduct. 9 Joseph J. Mangano et al., “An unexpected rise in strontium-90 in U.S. deciduous teeth in the 1990s,” The Science of the Total Environment, December 2003, 317:1-3: 37-51. See also Joseph J. Mangano et al., “Infant death and childhood cancer reductions after nuclear plant closing in the U.S.,” Archives of Environmental Heath, 2003, 58(2):
Page 3
Average Strontium-90 in U.S. Baby Teeth, 1954-2013.) The Academy is currently funding a study that will analyze cancer clusters by zip code in Central California from Strontium-90 emissions occurring at the Diablo Canyon nuclear facility. The initial results are indeed alarming and we’ll report on the full study when it is completed in less than 60 days.
Next, the trees: nuclear power plants are not “carbon free.” They do not emit carbon or other greenhouse gases as they split atoms during the fission process, but their carbon footprint must be assessed on the basis of their complete nuclear fuel life cycle. Significant amounts of fossil fuel are used indirectly in mining, milling, uranium fuel enrichment, plant and waste storage construction, decommissioning, and ultimately transportation and millennia-long storage of waste. There is plenty of carbon in that footprint that is rarely acknowledged, computed, or mediated. In addition, the nuclear industry’s false refrain that nuclear power plants have no carbon footprint is an attempt to obscure the fact that nuclear power plants’ radiation footprint is far more lethal than the carbon footprint of any other industry. Additionally, the industry’s rhetoric masks the astronomical costs for thousands of years of storage that could be better invested in rapidly developing renewable fuels with a zero carbon footprint like solar, wind, geothermal, and Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, which don’t carry harmful, let alone lethal, side effects.
Based on the foregoing observations, I and my World Business Academy colleagues would like to engage with you and your panel in a constructive dialogue to examine, from a rational, neutral perspective, the prospects of various forms of energy in relation to the climate change imperative with respect to the following points as expressed in your joint letter:
“The development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems is a practical means of addressing the climate change problem.” The arguments that nuclear power offers the solution to climate change are dead wrong for several reasons: (a) no matter how fast you try to build new nuclear plants, there aren’t enough engineers and technicians with the required expertise to build the number of nuclear power plants needed during the next 30 years just to replace the existing nuclear power plants set to go off line, let alone build 1,000 new power reactors in the U.S. alone; (b) Even if you could build hundreds of new nuclear plants, private sector investors will not fund existing plants or even the proposed new generation of multi-billion-dollar nuclear plants, even with massive government guarantees and subsidies, because no one has figured out how to build one that doesn’t routinely emit toxic levels of radioactivity while still producing power economically. This “next generation” promise has been heard for many decades now – even as the cost to build old style plants has accelerated by high multiples of their original projected costs just a couple of years ago—no one has yet come up with a viable “next generation” design10; (c) nuclear power is grotesquely uneconomical when factoring costs of
74-82. For further studies, see Sternglass, Ernest, J., “Articles, Scientific Papers, Books, Letters, and Selected Testimony Relating to the Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation,” Radiation and Public Health Project. 10 The so-called “pebble reactor” has proven to be both uneconomical in design, and in beta testing, unreliable as a means of keeping the fuel “pebbles” safely contained within the reactor core. No utility in the world currently has plans to attempt to build such a device.
Page 4
construction, operation, decommissioning, and waste disposal/storage for millennia; (d) radioactive emissions from nuclear reactors cause cancer and there is no known solution for radioactive waste disposal; and (e) nuclear power technology creates a path for rogue nations to build nuclear weapons, or as we say in the Academy: “Nuclear power is the gateway drug to nuclear weapons.”
From a business perspective, private investors should be seen as the ultimate ”referees” on competing energy choices, using informed diligence and prudent criteria to determine which energy technologies can compete in the market with the best chance of generating revenues and profits. As Amory Lovins points out, the capital markets have already spoken. Private investors and project finance lenders have flatly rejected large base-load nuclear power plants and have enthusiastically embraced supply-side competitors, decentralized cogeneration, and renewables.11 Even the existence of massive government guarantees and subsidies are an inadequate inducement for sophisticated investors like Warren Buffet, whose MidAmerican Energy Company (a 2nd-tier subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway) scrapped plans for a virtually “free” nuclear power plant12 while having concurrently formed an affiliated subsidiary, MidAmerican Renewables, dedicated exclusively to the development of renewable energy.13 We believe the reason all sophisticated investors avoid nuclear investments is because no one has figured out how to build a reactor that doesn’t routinely emit toxic levels of radioactivity while still producing power economically, and because there is no safe disposal system known to humanity.
The commercial nuclear industry has been around for over half a century, so the prudent approach would be to look at the industry’s track record. Under close examination, we find a string of broken promises, product failures, massive subterranean leaks of liquid nuclear waste (e.g., the Hanford facility), cost overruns, overly optimistic projections, stranded debts, bankruptcies, bond defaults, premature plant closings resulting from bad plant siting and/or accidental radioactive emissions from core reactor equipment failures (e.g., San Onofre), and vast quantities of toxic waste that grows daily primarily in spent fuel pools as inviting targets for terrorism. The above account does not include a series of catastrophic accidents and near-accidents, the most memorable of which are the 1979 near- meltdown at Three Mile Island, the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the ongoing leakage from three failed reactors in Fukushima.
After decades of subsidies, nuclear power still remains the most expensive and non-competitive form of base power generation that takes decades of lead-time before a single electron is produced.14 Nevertheless, in attempting to promote nuclear power, industry advocates focus only on certain limited costs for heavily subsidized fuel, labor, materials, and services that are characterized as “production costs.” But these limited costs are only part of the economic picture. The real challenge facing nuclear
11 Lovins, Amory B., “Competitors to Nuclear: Eat My Dust,” Rocky Mountain Institute, Newsletter, Summer 2005, p. 26. See Also McMahon, Jeff, “New-Build Nuclear is Dead: Morningstar,” Forbes.com, November 10, 2013. 12 “$1 Billion Nuclear Power Project Abandoned In Iowa,” CleanTechnica.com, June 6, 2013. 13 “Buffett’s MidAmerican Energy Holding Forms Renewables Unit,” GreenTechMedia.com, January 26, 2012. See Also: “Just the Facts: MidAmerican Renewables,” MidAmerican Rewewables website. 14 “Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies,” Union of Concerned Scientists, 2011, pp. 1-10.
Page 5
power becomes clear when “life cycle” production costs are compared, including construction, operations, maintenance, fuel, decommissioning, and millennial waste storage.15
The serious challenges described above make nuclear technology a very bad deal. Nuclear advocates claim that safety concerns will be addressed by the next generation of new advanced reactor designs that are supposedly “inherently safe.” This appears to be a backhand admission that the first-generation reactors were not that safe in the first place. And, as noted elsewhere herein, after hearing promises of a “next generation” reactor designs for many decades, no such design has appeared that is remotely ready for commercial construction. How long can all the acknowledged ills of nuclear power be cavalierly wiped away by invoking a mythical “next generation” reactor that has never appeared nor is likely to appear?
Before rushing to endorse nuclear expansion, regulatory agencies and individual researchers should critically examine past performance and demand experimental proof for claims that the next generation of nuclear plants (should any ever be considered for construction) will be economically viable, climate- friendly, and accident-proof. It is believed that next generation reactors will differ dramatically from current reactors in that they will replace active water cooling and multiple backup safety systems with “passive safety” designs. In fact, many nuclear advocates and news reports inaccurately describe the proposed new reactor designs, such as the pebble bed modular reactors, as “accident-proof” or “fail- safe.” However, experiments conducted at the THTR-300 modular reactor in Germany led to accidental releases of radiation after one of the supposedly “accident-proof” fuel pebbles became lodged in a feeder pipe, damaging the fuel cladding. After the operators tried to conceal the malfunction and blamed the radiation release on the Chernobyl accident, the government closed the reactor.16
The U.S. government has previously promised that there would be a long-term solution for the storage of high-level radioactive waste, primarily from spent fuel rods, which are still sitting in underwater spent fuel pools at “temporary” reactor storage sites around the country. The Department of Energy’s now defunct long-term waste depository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, was mired in scientific controversy, legal challenges, and an admission by all concerned that it wouldn’t prove large enough to contain the waste being created by existing reactors—let alone deal with the radioactive waste from new ones. Because of the lack of federal disposal facilities, highly radioactive spent fuel has to be removed regularly from the reactor core and “temporarily” stored in on-site water-filled cooling pools. While a variety of disposal methods have been under study for decades, there is still no demonstrated solution for effectively isolating and storing nuclear waste from the environment for many thousands of years. Meanwhile, high-level radioactive waste continues to build up at 65 reactor sites in 31 states in spent fuel pools without reinforced containment buildings that are vulnerable to accidents and terrorist attacks.
15 “Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies,” Union of Concerned Scientists, 2011, pp. 7-9. 16 “’Inherently Safe’ German PBMR Covers Up Radiation Accident and Shuts Down,” Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
Page 6
Once again, the promises of safety are enticing, but this time around the buyer had best demand the most rigorous levels of experimental verification. As Edward Teller, father of the H-bomb, observed, “Sooner or later the fool will prove greater than the proof even in a foolproof system.”
“Renewable energy sources like wind and solar and biomass cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires.” Renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and geothermal, are imminently scalable when combined with hydrogen fuel cell technologies to store and transport the energy they create. Renewables do not require the enormous planning and construction timeframes that plague nuclear units. Renewables are not prone to cost overruns, are cheaper to build and operate than nuclear plants, and produce power with zero carbon emissions. As such, they represent the least costly and least risky investment opportunities. In fact, Jacobson and Delucchi have argued persuasively in a November 2009 Scientific American article that “Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world’s energy, eliminating all fossil fuels.”17 In fact, our experience to date with renewable sources of energy is that their economies of scale and abundant status ultimately drive the cost of energy down over time, as opposed to finite fossil fuels and undeveloped 4th-generation nuclear energy technology.
In addition to all the other insurmountable challenges of using nuclear fission to create energy, the percentage of global energy supply generated by nuclear has actually fallen significantly in the recent past and shows every likelihood to fall even further in the coming decade. Over the last decade, renewables and combined-heat-and-power systems (cogeneration or distributed power) actually overtook nuclear power generation. The former, by 2010, represented 18% of the world’s electric generation while nuclear represented a mere 13%.18
Wind power and photovoltaic supply sources have become particularly strong growth sources of renewable energy. Since 2000, the annual growth rate for global wind power has been 27%; for solar PV 42%.19 From 2002 to 2012 in the US, nearly 50,000 megawatts of wind were installed. Currently, the US installs a solar system every 4 minutes. That’s expected to grow to one new system every one minute by 2015. And the numbers are accelerating. Two-thirds of all distributed solar systems have been installed over just the last 2 ½ years. By 2016, Greentechmedia research projects the US will have one million residential solar PV installations.20 Worldwide solar is expanding at a feverish pace. In four decades, 50,000 megawatts of solar PV were installed globally. But an additional 50,000 were added just over the last 2 ½ years while panel prices have fallen 62%. By 2015, another 100,000 megawatts are projected to be installed. 21 In 2012, almost half of all generation capacity additions in the U.S. were renewable. In
17 Jacobsen, Mark Z., and Delucchi, Mark A., “A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030,” Scientific American, November 2009. 18 Lovins, Amory, “With Nuclear Power, ‘No Acts of God Can be Permitted,’” Huffington Post, March 18, 2011. 19 “World Nuclear Industry Status Report: 2013,” Mycle Schneider Consulting, July 2013. 20 “Solar System Installed in US Every 4 Minutes,” Greentechmedia, August 13, 2013. 21 “Chart: 2/3 of Global PV have been Installed in Last 2.5 Years,” Greentechmedia, August 13, 2013.
Page 7
January of this year, all capacity additions were renewable. Most of that was wind and solar PV.22 From January through September last year in the U.S., 961 megawatts of wind and 1,935 megawatts of solar PV were installed. No nuclear additions occurred.23 Why slow down these two dramatically effective sources of energy by allocating many billions of dollars per year to “develop” more nuclear resources that cannot be quickly deployed given various siting issues (long lead time, environmental safety, etc.) that will continue to keep nuclear bottled up and in decline in all modern, western industrialized nations?
Nuclear power hasn’t seen the same success as its renewable competitors for the public’s cash. Its percentage of global energy generation dropped 7% from a peak of 17% in 1993 to 10% in 2012. Currently, 14 countries are building 66 nuclear reactors worldwide. Forty-four of them are being constructed in China, India, or Russia. Nine of the 66 have been listed as “under construction” for 20 years; four for 10 years. Forty-five of them have no start-up date and 23 have experienced significant, protracted construction delays.24
All the renewable technologies such as wind, photovoltaic, so-called “Power Towers” (commercial-scale arrays of mirrors to create base power from solar exposure), and geothermal are mature and can be deployed immediately, given the requisite political will, whereas “next generation” nuclear reactors are still in the theoretical stages and have yet to produce a working scalable prototype. Indeed, according to the Office of Nuclear Energy estimates, “Some of these revolutionary designs could be demonstrated within the next decade, with commercial deployment beginning in the 2030s.”25 That’s clearly far too late to assist with reducing carbon emissions if we want to avoid mass calamity. Nuclear energy’s technological deficiency did not go unnoticed by former Vice President Al Gore, a former supporter of nuclear energy, who recently modified his position and said the current state of technology in the nuclear energy industry did not yet warrant a big expansion.26 Where will we be with climate change by the 2030s if we can’t, even by the most optimistic assessment from industry advocates, begin to build significant numbers of new plants? We can’t wait that long to act. Renewables are here today. They are proven, today. They are particularly desirable now that we have all the technology we require to store 100% of the power from renewables in the form of gaseous hydrogen for use by stationery and mobile fuel cells.27
22 “Nearly Half of New US Power Capacity in 2012 Was Renewable – Mostly Wind,” Grist.org, Jan 18, 2013 23 “Office of Energy Projects: Energy Infrastructure Update,” Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), September 2013. 24 “World Nuclear Industry Status Report: 2013,” Mycle Schneider Consulting, July 2013. 25 Kelly, John E., Dep. Asst. Sec. for Nuclear Reactor Technologies, Office of Nuclear Energy, “Paving the Path for Next-Generation Nuclear Energy,” May 6, 2013 (para.s 2 & 4). Italics added. 26 The Guardian, January 15, 2014. 27 Hyundai is selling the first commercially available hydrogen powered electric car in California by May, 2014, followed shortly after that by Toyota, Honda and ultimately a year or so later by 6 other manufacturers. See “Hyundai to offer Tucson Fuel Cell vehicle to LA-area retail customers in spring 2014; Honda, Toyota show latest FCV concepts targeting 2015 launch,” Green Car Congress, November 11, 2013.
Page 8
Furthermore, it is the Academy’s considered opinion that the days of constructing centralized base load power systems of any type are over, and the future of carbon-free energy production lies in decentralized systems. Rapidly accelerating the integration of gaseous hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells into the grid allows for a decentralized power structure that can both work with, or independently from, the current electric power infrastructure. This feature is particularly important when 1) converting an existing modern grid supplied electrical system in phases, 2) in scaling power systems for emerging third-world countries that cannot easily accommodate power grid infrastructure, or 3) supplementing renewable energy with hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells that can provide both storage capacity and grid stability.
The business case for hydrogen/fuel cell power can be summarized as follows28:
“Fuel cells are reliable, efficient, quiet, and significantly cut carbon emissions (and eliminate them when hydrogen is created by electrolysis from renewable energy sources). In the age of distributed generation (power generated onsite), fuel cells also offer facilities a clean break from an electric grid plagued by violent weather disruptions, line losses of up to 40% of the energy actually delivered, susceptibility to forest fires,29 and growing issues with cyber security. In addition, fuel cells are compatible with other energy technologies – whether renewable such as solar, wind or biogas, or traditional, such as natural gas or batteries. Fuel cells complement and improve energy technology performance and, in turn, help companies meet their sustainability goals while boosting their bottom line. … Fuel cell systems, whether grid-tied or grid- independent, provide premium power without voltage sags, surges, and frequency variations that can impact computer systems. In addition to power, byproduct heat from a fuel cell can be used at the end-user facility for space heating, water heating, and chilling, resulting in a combined electric/heat efficiency of ~85%. When supplementing grid power, fuel cells reduce peak demand and lower energy bills. … Fuel cell systems can be scaled up to multi-megawatts 30 and are capable of taking entire corporate campuses off the electric grid, but they do not have to work alone. In fact, many facilities now use fuel cells alongside other energy technologies to meet their power needs.”
“Innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing plants.” The historically consistent record of nuclear reactors for over 50 years is exactly the opposite – they have gone up each year in cost and have never achieved economies of scale or brought prices down. To our knowledge, there is no evidence supporting the proposition that either innovation or “economies of scale” will result in cheaper nuclear power in the future and, as noted earlier, no functional design exists
28 Curtin, Sandra, et al, “The Business Case for Fuel Cells 2012,” pp. 1-4, Fuel Cells 2000. 29 In fact, long distance transmission lines are not only destroyed by the increasing pattern of forest fires in the Western USA, they are often determined to be the cause of the fires themselves which then rage out of control in remote parts of the forest. 30 South Korea has begun installing and using such large base power fuel cell generators. See Dixon, Darius, “Another U.S. Clean Energy Generator Finds a Home Abroad,” New York Times, June 24, 2010.
Page 9
(or is on the drawing board) that will lead to reduced costs for nuclear energy in the foreseeable future. The economic challenge facing nuclear power becomes clear when one faces the fact that its “life cycle” production costs, computed on a per kilowatt-hour basis, are several times that of coal, natural gas, and wind — not including the ultimate waste disposal costs which remain unknown because no approved disposal system exists in the U.S.
Even if we decided to replace all fossil-fuel plants with nuclear reactors – leaving cost issues aside – it would not be technically possible to build them quickly enough to meet even the modest targets of the Kyoto Protocol. In the U.S., up to 1,000 new reactors (nearly 10 times the current base) would be required at a cost of about $1.5 trillion to $2.0 trillion, based on industry estimates of $1,500-$2,000/KW for new nuclear plant construction. In fact, Alvin M. Weinberg, former director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory argues that, in order to make a serious dent in carbon emissions, it would take perhaps four times as many reactors as suggested by the MIT study, or up to 4,000 reactors.31
In terms of upfront capital costs, an August 2013 analysis by Lazard is revealing. Whereas new nuclear construction stands at an average of nearly $7,600 per kilowatt, new onshore wind and solar PV (whether rooftop or utility scale) is much lower. Wind ranges, according to Lazard, between $1,500 to $2,000 per kilowatt and the high price for solar PV (rooftop) is assessed at $3,500 per kilowatt. Even offshore wind (which receives little to no subsidies from the US government) is competitive with new nuclear power units at an estimated $4,050 per kilowatt.32 Although the levelized cost of solar PV (the average cost over its lifetime) is estimated to be larger than Lazard’s estimated nuclear levelized cost, no one actually knows the final cost of a new nuclear plant in the U.S., and, given constant construction delays, if any can be built. Onshore wind and solar PV reached the cost threshold depicted by Lazard over the last decade or less. And their costs continue to decline. In fact, in the last four years estimates are that onshore wind and solar PV’s average lifetime costs have dropped 50%.33
The trend is well recognized by Wall Street analysts. For instance, Citi Research declared in the fall of 2012 that solar was already cheaper than retail electric rates “in many parts of the world…” Citi analysts wrote, “The perception of renewables as an expensive source of electricity is largely obsolete…”34 Best of all, we can construct these proven resources at a rapid pace even as we bring additional geothermal and Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) resources on line. The supply is limited only by our will to make the conversion to renewables our chosen path. The amount of energy that can be created at increasingly lower costs is virtually limitless with very little lead time (e.g. a new wind farm can go from siting to full production in 6-9 months).
According to a comment in the May 22nd edition of Environmental Science and Technology, issued in rebuttal to your March 15th article “Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical
31 Weinberg, Alvin M., “New Life for Nuclear Power,” Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2003. 32 “Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis – Version 7.0,” Lazard, August 2013. 33 “Analysis: 50% Reduction in Cost of Renewables Since 2008,” Cleantechnica.com, September 11, 2013. 34“Shale and Renewables: A Symbiotic Relationship,” Citi Research, September 12, 2012.
Page 10
and Projected Nuclear Power,” the authors asserted that “. . . [E]ven if nuclear energy could save lives, it does so at a sub [W]hen recent marginal capital and levelized costs are factored in for the United States, wind energy is other renewable sources range from power plant construction costs from 1966 to 1977, when most light water reactors in the U.S. were built, and found that the quoted cost for these 75 plants was $89.1 billion, but the real cost was $283.3 35
“Quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels.” While this assertion may be accurate on its face, it is in fact a red herring: choosing between nuclear and fossil fuels is like comparing death by hanging or by firing squad. The real question concerns the comparison between the associated cost and risks from a massive increase in nuclear power plant construction to the risks related to a similar expansion of renewable energy and hydrogen economy technologies. I think you would agree that there is little to no risk from renewable energy. Conversely, there remains significant exposure from nuclear power, even from highly theoretical generation 4 plant technology which claims to result in reduced waste, higher efficiencies and lower exposure to the surrounding population but is not remotely ready for commercialization at this time.
The captive nature of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to the nuclear industry also brings into question the ability of the U.S. to ensure safe operation of existing or new nuclear power plants. Unfortunately for us all, the NRC has the twin duty of “promoting and regulating” nuclear power. There is no question, after decades of experience, that “promotion” wins out every time over “regulation.” In 2011, the Associated Press issued a highly critical report documenting the cozy relationship between the NRC and the nuclear industry. AP found that safety standards were purposely weakened to allow aging reactors to continue operation.36 AP’s assertion that the institutional bias within the NRC is to protect rather than regulate the nuclear industry is reinforced by the Union of Concerned Scientists 2012 report about nuclear power plant safety. The 2012 report is one in a series that documents “near misses” at nuclear power plants. UCS defines a near miss as “an event that increases the chance of a core meltdown by at least a factor of 10…” The report found that NRC “has repeatedly failed to enforce essential safety regulations.” In its reports from 2010 to 2011, UCS documented 56 near-misses at 40 reactors, which means some operators are chronic violators of the law. 37
35 Sovacool, Benjamin K., et al, “Comment on ‘Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power’,” [dx.doi.org/10.1021/es401667h], Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 671 , p. 6715, para. 4 (see footnotes infra). 36 “Part I: AP IMPACT: US Regulators Weaken Nuke Safety Rules,” AP, June 2011. 37 “The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety in 2012: Tolerating the Intolerable,” UCS, 2012.
Page 11
Gregory Jaczko, who was chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the time of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, recently argued that more Fukushima-type accidents are inevitable if the world continues to rely on the current types of nuclear fission reactors, and he believes that society will not accept nuclear power on that condition. "For nuclear power plants to be considered safe, they should not produce accidents like this," he said. "By 'should not' I don’t mean that they have a low probability, but simply that they should not be able to produce accidents like this. That is what the public has said quite clearly. That is what we need as a new safety standard for nuclear power going forward."38 In fact, just after leaving office on April 8, 2013 Chairman Jaczko made the shocking observation that all 104 then operating nuclear power plants in the U.S. have safety problems that cannot be fixed and that they should be replaced. He went on to observe “Continuing to put Band-Aid on Band-Aid is not going to fix the problem.”39
Mr. Jaczko’s sentiments are reverberating throughout Japan, whose citizens are feeling first-hand the devastating consequences of nuclear disaster. As reported in The Guardian: “Since Fukushima, a forceful grass-roots movement has grown to permanently decommission all of Japan's nuclear power plants. The prime minister at the time of the earthquake, Naoto Kan, explained how his position on nuclear power shifted: ‘My position before 11 March 2011, was that as long as we make sure that it's safely operated, nuclear power plants can be operated and should be operated. However, after experiencing the disaster of 11 March, I changed my thinking 180 degrees, completely ... there is no other accident or disaster that would affect 50 million people -- maybe a war, but there is no other accident can cause such a tragedy.’ Prime Minister Abe, leading the most conservative Japanese administration since World War II, wants to restart his country's nuclear power plants, despite overwhelming public opposition.” In response to the widespread unrest, the current administration also enacted a controversial state secrecy law that has been used to suppress dissent and transparency concerning the true impacts from the Fukushima meltdown.40 In response, independent volunteer groups such as Safecast have gathered their own radiation data through crowdsourcing Geiger readings from Fukushima to Tokyo. After three years, their data shows that radiation levels in Tokyo (200 km. away) have increased 50% since Fukushima.41 The World Business Academy plans on employing similar techniques to monitor Fukushima impacts along the western US coastline. All evidence concerning the social and environmental impacts of Fukushima must be weighed before Mankind “goes all in” on nuclear energy.
38 Strickland, Eliza, “Former NRC Chairman Says U.S. Nuclear Industry is ‘Going Away’,” IEEE Spectrum, October 10, 2013. See also the following video: “Gregory Jaczko: Dangers of Nuclear Power in New York,” The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident: Ongoing Lessons, https://www.facebook.com/FukushimaLessons, October 8, 2013. 39 Wald, Matthew, “Ex-Regulator Says Reactors Are Flawed,” New York Times, April 8, 2013. Chairman Jaczko served as Chairman of the NRC from May 2009 to May 2012. 40 Goodman, Amy, “Fukushima is an ongoing warning to the world on nuclear energy,” The Guardian, January 16, 2014. 41 “Volunteers Crowdsource Radiation Monitoring to Map Potential Risk on Every Street in Japan,” DemocracyNow.Org, January 17, 2014. See Also, Safecast website.
Page 12
“We cannot afford to turn away from any technology that has the potential to displace a large fraction of our carbon emissions.” As stated above, the “life cycle” production costs of nuclear energy, computed on a per kilowatt-hour basis, are several times that of photovoltaic, geothermal, wind, and likely OTEC as well. In your article, “Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power,” you and co-author Pushker A. Kharecha state that
“[i]f the role of nuclear power significantly declines in the next few decades, the International Energy Agency asserts that achieving a target atmospheric GHG level of 450 ppm CO2-eq would require ‘heroic achievements in the deployment of emerging low carbon technologies, which have yet to be proven.’ […] Our analysis herein and a prior one strongly support this conclusion. Indeed, on the basis of combined evidence from paleoclimate data, observed ongoing climate impacts, and the measured planetary energy imbalance, it appears increasingly clear that the commonly discussed targets of 450 ppm and 2 °C global temperature rise (above preindustrial levels) are insufficient to avoid devastating climate impacts; we have suggested elsewhere that more appropriate targets are less than 350 ppm and 1 °C. Aiming for these targets emphasizes the importance of retaining and expanding the role of nuclear power, as well as energy efficiency improvements and renewables, in the near-term global energy supply.”42
While we at the World Business Academy agree with your overall assessment concerning higher standards and the need for action, we believe that the vast resources and time needed to build new nuclear plants on a scale to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions would be better allocated towards the expansion of various renewable energy sources in tandem with hydrogen storage and transport systems. If the impact you seek is an expedited and meaningful reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions, the fastest, most economically viable and safest course of action is an all-out effort to ramp up renewable deployment. With the support of the private sector, the growth and innovation in the renewable energy sector will lead to unprecedented adoption of the technologies critical to the future of our species.
If a business fails, the owners face bankruptcy. If nuclear power fails, the world faces radioactive poisons, nuclear terrorism, and the specter of a dangerous future filled with bomb-rattling nations and regional nuclear arms races. We face incalculable expense and unlimited danger dealing with ever- greater quantities of highly toxic radioactive waste that remains deadly even in small quantities for millennia.
Our civilization immediately needs to deploy on a massive scale non-fossil fuel energy sources that (1) are safe, renewable, non-toxic, and increasingly inexpensive (as deployed quantities increase) and (2) can begin supplying vast amounts of sustainable energy on a fully distributed basis (i.e., where creation
42 Kharecha, Pushker A. and Hansen, James E., “Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power,” [dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3051197], Environ. Sci. Technol. 2 , p. 4893, para. 7.
Page 13
and utilization are both distributed). Given growing demand and limited resources, the U.S. and the nations of the world should invest in the best global energy solutions rather than try to resurrect the failed nuclear option. Efficiency, biofuels, renewables, and hydrogen could revitalize our nation and our planet economically, environmentally, and geopolitically, while ensuring a safe future for all.
We at the World Business Academy are working to realize that vision and are preparing a plan, reminiscent of JFK’s 1961 “Moonshot Challenge,” to make the state of California carbon-free within 10 years of implementation. Under our plan, scheduled for publication in 2014 in conjunction with hearings before the California Public Utilities Commission, an infinite supply of wind ($0.08/KW) and geothermal ($0.10/KW) energy will be converted into hydrogen at a cost of $7.50/kg, or approximately $3.25/gal equivalent. Concurrently, chemical and catalytic technologies would be pursued to extract carbon from the atmosphere, and to solidify those deposits into plastics for beneficial use. Should California, the world’s 8th largest economy, successfully meet this challenge, we believe the world will follow.
Even though the current energy system is entering its sunset years—in fact because of it—our basic findings are overwhelmingly positive. Civilization has already survived, indeed prospered, through several profound energy transformations: from muscle power to wood; from wood to coal and whale oil; and most recently from coal and whale oil to petroleum and natural gas. We firmly believe it is within our collective power and wisdom to call forth the leadership needed to replace fossil fuels, minimize and eventually stabilize climate change, create a stronger and more secure global economy, and spread wealth to poor nations.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that all of us engaged in the fight to mitigate climate change are on the same side, and our only difference lies in what we see as the best path forward for humanity. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of pursuing multiple paths towards a solution given the accelerating timeline identified by your research and the finite human, physical and political capital at our disposal.
We would love an opportunity to discuss these issues in detail and collaborate on ways to advance our mutual goals regarding climate change. By engaging in a constructive dialogue, we can develop the synergies to realize the kind of “heroic achievements” needed to save humanity from itself.
Sincerely,
Rinaldo S. Brutoco President
Page 14
Appendix A
Page 15
About | World Business Academy
Taking Responsibility for WORLD BUSINESS ACADEMY the Whole
SearchHOME … NEWS FELLOWS PUBLICATIONS ABOUT DONATE Search
About ABOUT
Our Mission The World Business Academy is a non-profit business think tank, action incubator and network of business and thought leaders. Our Mission is to inspire business to assume responsibility for the whole of society and Executive Team assist those in business who share our values.
Fellows Led by our Founding President, Rinaldo S. Brutoco, the Academy explores the role and responsibility of business in relation to critical moral, environmental, and social issues of our day. Elisabet Sahtouris Chair in Living Economies For more background on the inspiration of the Academy, read our Mission Statement and Why is There a World Business Academy?, a foundational document that remains as relevant today as it was when first The Akio Matsumura Chair in published in 1987. International Diplomacy The Academy’s projects and publications take on today’s challenges including environmental degradation; the shift away from dirty energy and toward clean, renewable energy; and the existential threat posed by climate change. Our work explores new metrics for valuation of public companies, value-driven leadership, the development of the human potential at work, sustainable business strategies and global reconstruction.
Housed in the Academy, the annual EthicMark® Awards recognize socially responsible advertising and media communications that uplift the human spirit and society.
The Academy has a unique resource in its Academy Fellows who comprise a veritable Who’s Who of world- class thinkers. These include Warren Bennis (leadership and management), Lester Brown (global environment), Deepak Chopra (healing and wellness), Ervin Laszlo (cultural consciousness), Hazel Henderson (economic futures), Amory Lovins (energy policy), Michael Ray (creativity in business), Lance Secretan (inspirational leadership), Peter Senge (organizational learning) and many more.
308 East Carrillo Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 U.S.A Email: [email protected] Phone: 805-892-4600 Fax: 805-884-0900 © 2014 World Business Academy | Site by okbreathe
http://worldbusiness.org/about/[1/22/2014 9:16:40 PM] 1/26/2014 Fello s World B siness Academ
Taking Re pon ibili fo
WORLD BUSINESS ACADEMY he Whole
HOME NEWS FELLOWS PUBLICATIONS ABOUT DONATE Search
O Fello Wo ld B ine Academ Fello ep e en ome of he be and b igh e men and omen ho a e haping oda global land cape. Fo man ea , he ha e anal ed, epo ed and p edic ed he an fo ming pa adigm hif in b ine and ocie . Via Academ p blica ion , Fello p o ide Membe i h c en info ma ion on i e ele an o he e ol ing global land cape.
L nne T i Da id Ge hon Deepak Chop a, M.D.
Fo mo e han 40 ea , L nne T i ha Da id Ge hon, co-fo nde and CEO of Ackno ledged a one of he o ld' been a ecogni ed global i iona Empo e men In i e, i one of he g ea e leade in he field of mind bod commi ed o alle ia ing po e and h nge o ld fo emo a ho i ie on beha io - medicine, Deepak Chop a, M.D. con in e and ppo ing ocial j ice and change, comm ni empo e men and o an fo m o nde anding of he en i onmen al ainabili . F om o king la ge- em an fo ma ion, and applie meaning of heal h. Th o gh hi c ea ion of i h Mo he Te e a in Calc a o he hi e pe i e o i e eq i ing The Chop a Cen e Fo Well Being in La ef gee camp in E hiopia and he comm ni , o gani a ional, and ocie al Jolla, Califo nia in 1995, Chop a h ea ened ainfo e of he Ama on change. Hi clien incl de ci ie , e abli hed a fo mal ehicle
Comple e Li of O Fello
Ami Go ami, Amo B. Lo in , Ba ba a Ma Ben A. Mancini Be na d A. Be h S. Ja man, Ph.D. Ph.D. H bba d, Ph.D. Ben Mancini e ed a Lie ae Ph.D. P ofe o Go am i Am o B. Lo in , Chief D . Ba ba a Ma P e iden of he Wo ld Be na d Lie ae i he Be h Ja man i a ea ned hi Ph.D. f om E ec i e Office H bba d ha been a B ine Academ lead a ho of he fo nding pa ne of f om 1997 o 2000. He Calc a Uni e i in (Re ea ch) of Rock pionee in po i i e pa adigm- hif ing ne Leade hip 2000, Inc. conc en l held he heo e ical n clea Mo n ain In i e, i a op ion fo he f e epo b he EU He ong academic po i ion of ph ic in 1964 and con l an fo he pa 35 ea . A Chap e of he Cl b of and o gani a ional P e iden ha been a e pe im en al ph ici p blic peake , Rome, Mone and in e e ha e p ofe o p o ided
B o he Da id S eindl-Ra , h p:// orldb siness.org/abo /fello s/ 1/6 1/26/2014 Fello s World B siness Academ Ph.D. Da id S eindl-Ra a bo n in 1926, in Vienna, A ia, he e he ecei ed a Ph.D. f om he Uni e i of Vienna. In 1952 C n hia Che e , Daniel Goleman, Da id K iege , Da id L. Ph.D. Ph.D. Ph.D. Coope ide C n hia Che e , he Daniel Goleman Da id K iege i a Da id L. Coope ide i ice p e iden fo con l in e na ionall fo nde of he N clea P ofe o and Co inne den affai a and lec e f eq en l Age Peace Fo nda ion, Chai man of he McLa ghlin T lane Uni e i ho o b ine a dience , and ha e ed a Depa m en of Co inne McLa ghlin i helped lead he Ne p ofe ional g o p , P e iden of he O gani a ional Beha io co-a ho of The O lean chool and college Fo nda ion ince a he Wea he head P ac ical Vi iona : A h o gh 1982 School of Ne Wo ld G ide o Spi i al G o h and Social Change,Spi i al
Diana Whi ne , Diane V. Dipak C. Jain, Don Beck, Ph.D. D . Do o h Ph.D. Ci incione, Ph.D. Ph.D. Don Beck, Ph.D. i a Ma e D . Diana Whi ne i D . Ci incione i a Dipak C. Jain ha been p o o pe fo ac i i in D . Do o h Ma e i an in pi a ional he api and fo me named Dean of he ne millenni m. P e iden of he peake , p o oca i e po doc o al clinical INSEAD, he Hi dedica ion o Na ional Peace Eddie E land on, ed ca o and e ea che a Langle in e na ional b ine e ice and di co e Academ , b inging a M.D. pionee ing ho gh Po e P chia ic chool ba ed in ha een him foc on peaceb ilding Eddie E land on b ing leade in he g o ing In i e a he Fon ainebea , F ance and peacelea ning o a niq e backg o nd field of hich al o he a a ph ician and b ine leade o helping e ec i e make needed change .
Eli abe E in La lo, F. B on (Ron) Ga Z ka Ga Hend ick , Geo ge Land, Sah o i , Ph.D. Ph.D. Nah e , Ph.D. M life i dedica ed o Ph.D. Ph.D. Eli abe Sah o i , D . E in La lo i a Managing Di ec o fo he bi h of a ne Ga Hend ick , Ph.D., Geo ge Land i an Ph.D. i an e ol ion Fello of he Wo ld CORPORANTES, Inc., h mani . Tha bi h i a P ofe o of a ho , peake , biologi , f i , B ine Academ . an o g o h of The no in p og e . We Co n eling fo en - con l an , and gene al a ho , peake and He i he Fo nde and Nah e a e all in ol ed in i . one ea in he chool em cien i . In con l an on Li ing P e iden of he Cl b Agenc /Ad e i ing, D . The ne h mani of Ed ca ion a he 1965 he fo nded a S em De ign. of B dape , Nah e i c en l a Uni e i of e ea ch and P e iden Senio Colo ado con l ing
Ge ald G. Go don Da id on G eg Mo en on H. Jame B o n, Ha lan Ha i on O en Jampol k , M.D. Go don Da id on i he G eg Mo en on i he Ph.D. Cle eland, PH.D. Ha i on O en i h p:// orldb siness.org/abo /fello s/ 2/6 1/26/2014 Fello s World B siness Academ D . Jampol k i a p e iden of he Cen e co-fo nde and H. Jame B o n i (1918 o 2008) P e iden of H.H.O en g ad a e of S anfo d fo Vi iona E ec i e Di ec o of p e iden and CEO of and Co. Hi academic Medical School and a Leade hip and a co- he Cen al A ia he Lincoln In i e of D . Cle eland a bo n backg o nd and fo me fac l m embe fo nde of Si i In i e, hich o k Land Polic . F om 1970 Jan a 19, 1918 and aining cen e ed on of he Uni e i of Comm ni , and he o em po e o 1996, he a a pa ed a a Ma 30, he na e and f nc ion Califo nia School ha comm ni ie p ofe o a he 2008
Ha el Helen Palme Jagdi h Pa ikh, Jame Milojko ic, Hende on, Helen Palm e i he Ph.D. Ph.D. Ph.D. a ho of fi e D . Pa ikh i Managing Jame B. Jame Milojko ic (p . in e na ional be - Ha el Hende on i he Di ec o of he Lem i Jame C. Milo 'ko' ich) i he elling book in he Channon fo nde of E hical G o p of Companie , a Thomp on Fo nde and Chief li e a e of Di ec o of he Recogni ed o ld ide Ed ca ion Office of Ma ke Media, LLC Jim Thom p on i con cio ne . He TechNo a G o p of a he o iginal pionee Kno ledgePa ion and he c ea o and co- fo nde and E ec i e o k incl de Companie and of he co po a e e ec i e P od ce of Di ec o of Po i i e T a el i ioning p oce he i TV e ie . ha been a ed Coaching Alliance, a a egic de igne non-p ofi fo med a S anfo d Uni e i
Ja an ilal (And ) Jean Ho on, Je ica H. John Adam , John B. Ta lo , K. Chande Ph.D. F llme Ph.D. Ph.D. Bo n in Ken a, And , D . Jean Ho on, Je B. B o n, Je ica F llm e i John D. Adam , Ph.D. John B. Ta lo , Ph.D. i ho a knigh ed b chola , philo ophe Ph.D. fo nde and CEO of ha been a he he Ma and Robe He Maje Q een and e ea che in Mo-DV. Mo-DV a fo ef on of he Ra mond P ofe o of O e he pa h ee Eli abe h II in 2003, i H man Capaci ie , i fo med in he mme O gani a ion Economic a S anfo d decade , Je B. a fello of he one of he fo em o of 2002 o e m emo De elopmen Uni e i and he B o n, Ph.D. ha In e na ional i iona hinke ca d fo ideo in p ofe ion fo m o e Bo en H. and o ked o c ea e Academ and mobile han 30 ea . He po i i e ocial and a en i onmen al change h o gh
John Rai ian, Jo eph Ja o ki Ka en Wilhelm Ka l-Hend ik Ka e L deman, Ki k Han on Ph.D. Jo eph Ja o ki ha B ckle Robe , M.D. Ph.D. Ki k O. Han on, D . Rai ian i an de o ed m ch of hi Ka en Wilhelm B ckle D . Ka l-Hen ik Rob Ka e L dem an i a e ec i e di ec o of he economi ho life o he d and i P incipal Con l an i one of S eden' idel ecogni ed Ma kk la Cen e fo peciali ed in na ional p ac ice of leade hip i h The Wi dom fo em o cance e ec i e coach, Applied E hic a San a and in e na ional labo de elopmen . He Leade hip Ini ia i e, cien i ho e o k peake and a ho . In Cla a Uni e i , i ma ke and h man began hi a i ing leade and on damaged h man 1988, Ka e fo nded Uni e i P ofe o e o ce i e . P io p ofe ional o gani a ion cell led o a deep Wo h E hic in e e Co po a ion.
h p:// orldb siness.org/abo /fello s/ 3/6 1/26/2014 Fello s World B siness Academ
Lance H. La Spea Le e R. B o n Ma c L ck , Ma ga e Ma k Ge on Sec e an, Ph.D. La Spea a The Wa hing on Ph.D. Whea le Ma k Ge on i one of Lance Sec e an i a named Chief E ec i e Po called Le e Bo n in 1942, ma ied Ma ga e Whea le i he ke a chi ec of he pa hfinde and Office of The Robe K. B o n "one of he i h I abelle, i p e iden of The field of global mi iona , and one of G eenleaf Cen e fo o ld' mo infl en ial child en, He i li ing in Be kana In i e, and leade hip and global he o ld' fo emo Se an -Leade hip in hinke ." The he neighbo hood of an in e na ionall ci i en hip, an hinke abo 1990. Spea Teleg aph of Calc a B el . He ha acclaim ed peake and e pe ienced leade hip, in pi ing efe died ma hema ic i e . She ha been facili a o people
Ma k S. Albion, Ma k-And Ma Goldbe ge Michelle L. B ck, Ph.D. Oli ie In Memo iam: he Ph.D. Af e en ea a a Ma c-And ha co- Wo ld B ine Michael Ra , Michelle L. B ck i Academ ill mi o Ph.D. den and m a ke ing de eloped and co- Clinical A ocia e N. Mohan Redd , p ofe o a Ha a d facili a ed he Lea ning dea f iend and Michael L. Ra i he P ofe o of B ine School, D . a Leade hip colleag e, Ma fi John G. McCo - Managem en and Ph.D. Albion m ade he c ic l m fo 15 ea . Goldbe ge , ho Banc One Co po a ion O gani a ion a he D . N. Mohan Redd i deci ion ha he e He ha died pa ed a a in ea l P ofe o of C ea i i Kellogg School of Albe J. Wea he head o gani a ional and Inno a ion and of Managem en a III P ofe o of Ma ke ing ( Managem en a he Wea he head School of Managem en , Ca e We e n
Pa ick K. Pa l H. Ra , Pe e Hoffmann Pe e R ell Pe e Senge, Takaha hi, Ph.D. Ph.D. Pe e Hoffmann i he Pe e R ell i a Ph.D. Pa ick Kengi D . Ra a ed ca ed edi o of The H d ogen fello of he In i e of Pe e M. Senge i a Takaha hi, Ph.D., i a Yale and he & F el Cell Le e , he Noe ic Science , of Senio Lec e a he he Di ec o Eme i Uni e i of Michigan, oice of he The Wo ld B ine Ma ach e In i e Philip and Mikela of he Uni e i of he e he a al o an in e na ional h d ogen Academ and of The of Technolog . He i Ta lo Ha aii Na al Ene g a ocia e p ofe o . comm ni , Findho n Fo nda ion al o Chai pe on of Mikela and Philip In i e, and co- He i he co-a ho he Socie Ta lo a e leading he fo nde call fo a p chological f i m: a a of en i ioning he oad ahead ha ake
h p:// orldb siness.org/abo /fello s/ 4/6 1/26/2014 Fello s World B siness Academ Rabbi Michael Rajend a S. Ra i Cha dh Riane Ei le , Le ne , Ph.D. Si odia, Ph.D. Ra i Cha dh i a Ph.D. Rabbi Michael Le ne , Rajend a S. Si odia, b ine a eg Riane Ei le i he Ph.D., i a leading Ph.D., i P ofe o of con l an , m en o o a ho of The Chalice a ho , p blic Ma ke ing a Ben le CEO and co po a e and The Blade: O in ellec al, and Uni e i , and a Boa d , a p blic Hi o , O F e in pi i al leade . He i p e io l T ee in ellec al and an hich he in od ce he Edi o of Tikk n P ofe o of a ho he c l al Richa d Ta na , Ma ke ing an fo ma ion Ph.D. Richa d Ba e Richa d Ta na , Ph.D., i p ofe o of Richa d Ba e ' pe onal m i ion i philo oph and p cholog a he h eefold Califo nia In i e of In eg al S die in San
Robe Q inn Ro abe h Mo R ben Nel on S a L. Ha , Te Mollne Robe E. Q inn hold Kan e , Ph.D. R ben Nel on ha Ph.D. Te Mollne i one of he M.E. T ac Ro abe h Mo Kan e been fa cina ed b he S a i he S.C. he pionee of ociall Collegia e hold he E ne L. f e fo o e 40 ea . John on Chai of e pon ible in e ing Robe M. P ofe o hip and i a A b ckle P ofe o hip Toda , he i com mi ed S ainable Global a a ne a e cla F lme , Ph.D. P ofe o of a Ha a d B ine o nde anding En e p i e and in he p ofe ional Robe M. F lme i O gani a ional Beha io School, he e he ocie al change p ofe o of in e m en c en l academ ic and H man peciali e in managem en a Co nell di ec o fo D ke Re o ce a eg Uni e i ' John on Co po a e Ed ca ion and P ofe o Em e i a he College of William
Thoma M. Ra , Ve na Allee Wall Amo Wa en Benni , William Windeagle and M.D. Ve na Allee i an Bo n in Tallaha ee, Ph.D. Mcdono gh FAIA ainbo ha k D . Ra ha been in e na ionall Flo ida, Wall Amo Wa en Benni Ph.D. i William McDono gh i Kinne -Lin on a ocia ed i h he ecogni ed ho gh li ed a childhood ha Uni e i P ofe o an in e na ionall WindEagle and o ld' fo em o clinic leade and a ho in a no al a able and Di ing i hed e pec ed de igne Rainbo Ha k, in kno ledge and o ble f ee. B a fo holi ic medicine P ofe o of B ine and one of he p im a Keepe of he O igin managem en , a child he and den i , de igned Admini a ion a he p oponen and Teaching of he in angible and ne o c ea e indi id al Uni e i of hape of ha he Delica e Lodge, ca b ine call an ancien bod of elf- kno ledge
Zho ing Jin, Ph.D. h p:// orldb siness.org/abo /fello s/ 5/6 1/26/2014 Fello s World B siness Academ P ofe o Zho ing Jin i a enio e ea che and p ofe o a he Chine e Academ of Social Science (CASS) he e he i
308 Ea Ca illo S ee San a Ba ba a, CA 93101 U.S.A Email: info@ o ldb ine .o g Phone: 805-892-4600 Fa : 805-884-0900 2014 Wo ld B ine Academ Si e b okb ea he
h p:// orldb siness.org/abo /fello s/ 6/6 Review Assessing ‘‘Dangerous Climate Change’’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature
James Hansen1*, Pushker Kharecha1,2, Makiko Sato1, Valerie Masson-Delmotte3, Frank Ackerman4, David J. Beerling5, Paul J. Hearty6, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg7, Shi-Ling Hsu8, Camille Parmesan9,10, Johan Rockstrom11, Eelco J. Rohling12,13, Jeffrey Sachs1, Pete Smith14, Konrad Steffen15, Lise Van Susteren16, Karina von Schuckmann17, James C. Zachos18 1 Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America, 2 Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA, New York, New York, United States of America, 3 Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement (CEA-CNRS-UVSQ), Gif-sur-Yvette, France, 4 Synapse Energy Economics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America, 5 Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, United Kingdom, 6 Department of Environmental Studies, University of North Carolina, Wilmington, North Carolina, United States of America, 7 Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia, 8 College of Law, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, United States of America, 9 Marine Institute, Plymouth University, Plymouth, Devon, United Kingdom, 10 Integrative Biology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, United States of America, 11 Stockholm Resilience Center, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, 12 School of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom, 13 Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 14 University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom, 15 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Zurich, Switzerland, 16 Center for Health and the Global Environment, Advisory Board, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, 17 L’Institut Francais de Recherche pour l’Exploitation de la Mer, Ifremer, Toulon, France, 18 Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, United States of America
inertia causes climate to appear to respond slowly to this human- Abstract: We assess climate impacts of global warming made forcing, but further long-lasting responses can be locked in. using ongoing observations and paleoclimate data. We More than 170 nations have agreed on the need to limit fossil use Earth’s measured energy imbalance, paleoclimate fuel emissions to avoid dangerous human-made climate change, as data, and simple representations of the global carbon formalized in the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate cycle and temperature to define emission reductions Change [6]. However, the stark reality is that global emissions needed to stabilize climate and avoid potentially disas- have accelerated (Fig. 1) and new efforts are underway to trous impacts on today’s young people, future genera- tions, and nature. A cumulative industrial-era limit of massively expand fossil fuel extraction [7–9] by drilling to ,500 GtC fossil fuel emissions and 100 GtC storage in the increasing ocean depths and into the Arctic, squeezing oil from biosphere and soil would keep climate close to the tar sands and tar shale, hydro-fracking to expand extraction of Holocene range to which humanity and other species are natural gas, developing exploitation of methane hydrates, and adapted. Cumulative emissions of ,1000 GtC, sometimes mining of coal via mountaintop removal and mechanized long- associated with 2uC global warming, would spur ‘‘slow’’ wall mining. The growth rate of fossil fuel emissions increased feedbacks and eventual warming of 3–4uC with disastrous from 1.5%/year during 1980–2000 to 3%/year in 2000–2012, consequences. Rapid emissions reduction is required to mainly because of increased coal use [4–5]. restore Earth’s energy balance and avoid ocean heat The Framework Convention [6] does not define a dangerous uptake that would practically guarantee irreversible level for global warming or an emissions limit for fossil fuels. The effects. Continuation of high fossil fuel emissions, given current knowledge of the consequences, would be an act of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice. Re- Citation: Hansen J, Kharecha P, Sato M, Masson-Delmotte V, Ackerman F, sponsible policymaking requires a rising price on carbon et al. (2013) Assessing ‘‘Dangerous Climate Change’’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature. PLoS emissions that would preclude emissions from most ONE 8(12): e81648. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081648 remaining coal and unconventional fossil fuels and phase down emissions from conventional fossil fuels. Editor: Juan A. An˜el, University of Oxford, United Kingdom Published December 3, 2013 This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for Introduction any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. Humans are now the main cause of changes of Earth’s Funding: Funding came from: NASA Climate Research Funding, Gifts to atmospheric composition and thus the drive for future climate Columbia University from H.F. (‘‘Gerry’’) Lenfest, private philanthropist (no web change [1]. The principal climate forcing, defined as an imposed site, but see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._F._Lenfest), Jim Miller, Lee Wasser- man (Rockefeller Family Fund) (http://www.rffund.org/), Flora Family Foundation change of planetary energy balance [1–2], is increasing carbon (http://www.florafamily.org/), Jeremy Grantham, ClimateWorks and the Energy dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel emissions, much of which will Foundation provided support for Hansen’s Climate Science, Awareness and remain in the atmosphere for millennia [1,3]. The climate Solutions program at Columbia University to complete this research and response to this forcing and society’s response to climate change publication. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. are complicated by the system’s inertia, mainly due to the ocean and the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica together with the Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. long residence time of fossil fuel carbon in the climate system. The * E-mail: [email protected]
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 December 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 12 | e81648
An addendum to the Statement on Climate Change: Evidence from the Geological Record
December 2013
To find out more, visit www.geolsoc.org.uk/climatechange or email [email protected]
Climate change An addendum to the Geological Society Statement on Climate Change: Evidence from the Geological Record
The Geological Society published a Statement on 'Climate Change: Evidence from the Geological Record' in November 2010. In light of further research that has been published since then, the Geological Society reconvened the expert working group that drafted the 2010 Climate Change Statement to consider whether it was still fit for purpose, and if necessary to amend or add to it.
The working group and Council have concluded that the 2010 Climate Change Statement continues to be valid, and does not need to be amended. Instead, the working group has produced an addendum setting out new research findings relevant to the questions raised in the original statement.
A non-technical summary of the key points from the addendum is set out below, aimed principally at non-specialists and Fellows of the Society with a general interest. This is followed by the full technical version of the addendum, for those who wish to read in more detail about advances in the relevant research. The full technical version includes references to the published papers on which it draws. It is intended to be read alongside the original 2010 Climate Change Statement, and follows the same Q&A format.
Summary
Geologists have recently contributed to improved Since our original 2010 statement, new climate data estimates of climate sensitivity (defined as the increase from the geological record have arisen which strengthen in global mean temperature resulting from a doubling in the statement’s original conclusion that CO2 is a major atmospheric CO2 levels). Studies of the Last Glacial modifier of the climate system, and that human activities are responsible for recent warming. Maximum (about 20,000 years ago) suggest that the climate sensitivity, based on rapidly acting factors like Palaeoclimate records are now being used widely to test snow melt, ice melt and the behaviour of clouds and the validity of computer climate models used to predict water vapour, lies in the range 1.5°C to 6.4°C. Recent climate change. Palaeoclimate models can simulate the research has given rise to the concept of ‘Earth System large-scale gradients of past change, but tend not to sensitivity’, which also takes account of slow acting accurately reproduce fine-scale spatial patterns. They factors like the decay of large ice sheets and the also have a tendency to underestimate the magnitude of operation of the full carbon cycle, to estimate the full past changes. Nevertheless they are proving to be sensitivity of the Earth System to a doubling of CO2. It is increasingly useful tools to aid thinking about the nature estimated that this could be double the climate and extent of past change, by providing a global picture sensitivity. where palaeoclimate data are geographically limited.
2 To find out more, visit www.geolsoc.org.uk/climatechange or email [email protected]
Summary for Policymakers
• A lower warming target, or a higher likelihood of remaining below a specific warming target, will require lower cumulative
CO2 emissions. Accounting for warming effects of increases in non-CO2 greenhouse gases, reductions in aerosols, or the
release of greenhouse gases from permafrost will also lower the cumulative CO2 emissions for a specific warming target (see Figure SPM.10). {12.5}
• A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to SPM 2 millennial time scale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period. Surface temperatures will remain approximately constant at elevated levels for many centuries after a complete cessation
of net anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Due to the long time scales of heat transfer from the ocean surface to depth, ocean
warming will continue for centuries. Depending on the scenario, about 15 to 40% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years. {Box 6.1, 12.4, 12.5}
• It is virtually certain that global mean sea level rise will continue beyond 2100, with sea level rise due to thermal expansion to continue for many centuries. The few available model results that go beyond 2100 indicate global mean
sea level rise above the pre-industrial level by 2300 to be less than 1 m for a radiative forcing that corresponds to CO2 concentrations that peak and decline and remain below 500 ppm, as in the scenario RCP2.6. For a radiative forcing that
corresponds to a CO2 concentration that is above 700 ppm but below 1500 ppm, as in the scenario RCP8.5, the projected rise is 1 m to more than 3 m (medium confidence). {13.5}
Cumulative total anthropogenic C O 2 emissions from 1870 (GtC O 2) 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 5
2100 ) C ° (
0
8 4 8 1 – 1 6 8 1
2100 o t
3 e v i t 2100 a l e r
2050 y l a 2 2050 m 2050
o 2050 2100 n a
2030 e
r 2030 u t a
r 1 2010 e
p R C P2.6 Historical m 2000 R C P4.5 R C P range e
T -1 R C P6.0 1950 1% yr C O 2 1980 -1 R C P8.5 1% yr C O 2 range 0 1890 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Cumulative total anthropogenic C O 2 emissions from 1870 (GtC)
Figure SPM.10 | Global mean surface temperature increase as a function of cumulative total global CO2 emissions from various lines of evidence. Multi- model results from a hierarchy of climate-carbon cycle models for each RCP until 2100 are shown with coloured lines and decadal means (dots). Some decadal means are labeled for clarity (e.g., 2050 indicating the decade 2040−2049). Model results over the historical period (1860 to 2010) are indicated in black. The coloured plume illustrates the multi-model spread over the four RCP scenarios and fades with the decreasing number of available models –1 in RCP8.5. The multi-model mean and range simulated by CMIP5 models, forced by a CO2 increase of 1% per year (1% yr CO2 simulations), is given by
the thin black line and grey area. For a specific amount of cumulative CO2 emissions, the 1% per year CO2 simulations exhibit lower warming than those
driven by RCPs, which include additional non-CO2 forcings. Temperature values are given relative to the 1861−1880 base period, emissions relative to 1870. Decadal averages are connected by straight lines. For further technical details see the Technical Summary Supplementary Material. {Figure 12.45; TS TFE.8, Figure 1}
26 Summary for Policymakers
• Sustained mass loss by ice sheets would cause larger sea level rise, and some part of the mass loss might be irreversible. There is high confidence that sustained warming greater than some threshold would lead to the near-complete loss of the Greenland ice sheet over a millennium or more, causing a global mean sea level rise of up to 7 m. Current estimates indicate that the threshold is greater than about 1°C (low confidence) but less than about 4°C (medium confidence) global mean warming with respect to pre-industrial. Abrupt and irreversible ice loss from a potential instability of marine- based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet in response to climate forcing is possible, but current evidence and understanding SPM is insufficient to make a quantitative assessment. {5.8, 13.4, 13.5}
• Methods that aim to deliberately alter the climate system to counter climate change, termed geoengineering, have been proposed. Limited evidence precludes a comprehensive quantitative assessment of both Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon D ioxide Removal (CDR) and their impact on the climate system. CDR methods have biogeochemical and technological limitations to their potential on a global scale. There is insufficient knowledge to quantify how
much CO2 emissions could be partially offset by CDR on a century timescale. Modelling indicates that SRM methods, if realizable, have the potential to substantially offset a global temperature rise, but they would also modify the global water cycle, and would not reduce ocean acidification. If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing. CDR and SRM methods carry side effects and long-term consequences on a global scale. {6.5, 7.7}
Box SPM.1: Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)
Climate change projections in IPCC Working Group I require information about future emissions or concentrations of greenhouse gases, aerosols and other climate drivers. This information is often expressed as a scenario of human activities, which are not assessed in this report. Scenarios used in Working Group I have focused on anthropogenic emissions and do not include changes in natural drivers such as solar or volcanic forcing or natural emissions, for
example, of CH4 and N2O.
For the Fifth Assessment Report of IPCC, the scientific community has defined a set of four new scenarios, denoted Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs, see Glossary). They are identified by their approximate total radiative forcing in year 2100 relative to 1750: 2.6 W m-2 for RCP2.6, 4.5 W m-2 for RCP4.5, 6.0 W m-2 for RCP6.0, and 8.5 W m-2 for RCP8.5. For the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) results, these values should be understood as indicative only, as the climate forcing resulting from all drivers varies between models due to specific model characteristics and treatment of short-lived climate forcers. These four RCPs include one mitigation scenario leading to a very low forcing level (RCP2.6), two stabilization scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP6), and one scenario with very high greenhouse gas emissions (RCP8.5). The RCPs can thus represent a range of 21st century climate policies, as compared with the no-climate policy of the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) used in the Third Assessment Report and the Fourth Assessment Report. For RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, radiative forcing does not peak by year 2100; for RCP2.6 it peaks and declines; and for RCP4.5 it stabilizes by 2100. Each RCP provides spatially resolved data sets of land use change and sector-based emissions of air pollutants, and it specifies annual greenhouse gas concentrations and anthropogenic emissions up to 2100. RCPs are based on a combination of integrated assessment models, simple climate models, atmospheric chemistry and global carbon cycle models. While the RCPs span a wide range of total forcing values, they do not cover the full range of emissions in the literature, particularly for aerosols.
Most of the CMIP5 and Earth System Model simulations were performed with prescribed CO2 concentrations reaching 421 ppm (RCP2.6), 538 ppm (RCP4.5), 670 ppm (RCP6.0), and 936 ppm (RCP 8.5) by the year 2100.
Including also the prescribed concentrations of CH4 and N2O, the combined CO2-equivalent concentrations are 475 ppm (RCP2.6), 630 ppm (RCP4.5), 800 ppm (RCP6.0), and 1313 ppm (RCP8.5). For RCP8.5, additional CMIP5 Earth
System Model simulations are performed with prescribed CO2 emissions as provided by the integrated assessment models. For all RCPs, additional calculations were made with updated atmospheric chemistry data and models (including the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate component of CMIP5) using the RCP prescribed emissions
of the chemically reactive gases (CH4, N2O, HFCs, NOx, CO, NMVOC). These simulations enable investigation of uncertainties related to carbon cycle feedbacks and atmospheric chemistry.
27 http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/
Top climate change scientists' letter to policy influencers updated 8:12 AM EST, Sun November 3, 2013 CNN.com
Editor's note: Climate and energy scientists James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley released an open letter Sunday calling on world leaders to support development of safer nuclear power systems. For more on the future of nuclear power as a possible solution for global climate change, watch CNN Films' presentation of "Pandora's Promise," Thursday, November 7, at 9 p.m. ET/PT. "... there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power," the letter says. (CNN) -- To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power:
As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your organization's concern about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change.
We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump.
Read more about the letter and the controversy surrounding it
Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power
We understand that today's nuclear plants are far from perfect. Fortunately, passive safety systems and other advances can make new plants much safer. And modern nuclear technology can reduce proliferation risks and solve the waste disposal problem by burning current waste and using fuel more efficiently. Innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing plants. Regardless of these advantages, nuclear needs to be encouraged based on its societal benefits.
Quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders
Page 1 of 2 Jan 16, 2014 05:51:44PM MST http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/ of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels. No energy system is without downsides. We ask only that energy system decisions be based on facts, and not on emotions and biases that do not apply to 21st century nuclear technology.
While there will be no single technological silver bullet, the time has come for those who take the threat of global warming seriously to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as one among several technologies that will be essential to any credible effort to develop an energy system that does not rely on using the atmosphere as a waste dump.
With the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology that has the potential to displace a large fraction of our carbon emissions. Much has changed since the 1970s. The time has come for a fresh approach to nuclear power in the 21st century.
We ask you and your organization to demonstrate its real concern about risks from climate damage by calling for the development and deployment of advanced nuclear energy.
Sincerely,
© 2014 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Page 2 of 2 Jan 16, 2014 05:51:44PM MST
Civil Society Institute 1 Bridge Street, Suite 200, Newton, MA 02458; 672-928-3408; [email protected]
Nuclear Information and Resource Service 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 3440, Takoma Park, MD 20912; 301-270-6477; [email protected]
January 6, 2014
Gentlemen,
Although we greatly respect your work on climate and lending it a much higher profile in public dialogue than would otherwise be the case, we read your letter of November 3, 2013 urging the environmental community to support nuclear power as a solution to climate change with concern. We respectfully disagree with your analysis that nuclear power can safely and affordably mitigate climate change.
Nuclear power is not a financially viable option. Since its inception it has required taxpayer subsidies and publically financed indemnity against accidents. New construction requires billions in public subsidies to attract private capital and, once under construction, severe cost overruns are all but inevitable. As for operational safety, the history of nuclear power plants in the US is fraught with near misses, as documented by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and creates another financial and safety quagmire – high-level nuclear waste. Internationally, we’ve experienced two catastrophic accidents for a technology deemed to be virtually ‘failsafe’.
As for “advanced” nuclear designs endorsed in your letter, they have been tried and failed or are mere blueprints without realistic hope, in the near term, if ever, to be commercialized. The promise and potential impact you lend breeder reactor technology in your letter is misplaced. Globally, $100 billion over sixty years have been squandered to bring the technology to commercialization without success. The liquid sodium-based cooling system is highly dangerous as proven in Japan and the US. And the technology has proven to be highly unreliable.
Equally detrimental in cost and environmental impact is reprocessing of nuclear waste. In France, the poster child for nuclear energy, reprocessing results in a marginal increase in energetic use of uranium while largely increasing the volume of all levels of radioactive waste. Indeed, the process generates large volumes of radioactive liquid waste annually that is dumped into the English Channel and has increased electric costs to consumers significantly. Not to mention the well-recognized proliferation risks of adopting a plutonium-based energy system.
We disagree with your assessment of renewable power and energy efficiency. They can and are being brought to scale globally. Moreover, they can be deployed much more quickly than nuclear power. For instance, in the US from 2002 to 2012 over 50,000 megawatts of wind were deployed. Not one megawatt of power from new nuclear reactors was deployed, despite subsidies estimated to be worth more than the value of the power new reactors would have produced. Similarly, it took 40 years globally to deploy 50,000 megawatts of solar PV and, recently, only 2 ½ years to deploy an equal amount. By some estimates, another 100,000 MW will be built by the end of 2015. Already, renewables and distributed power have overtaken nuclear power in terms of megawatt hour generation worldwide.
The fact of the matter is, many Wall Street analysts predict that solar PV and wind will have reached grid parity by the end of the decade. Wind in certain parts of the Midwest is already cheaper than natural gas on the wholesale level. Energy efficiency continues to outperform all technologies on a cost basis. While the cost of these technologies continues to decline and enjoy further technological advancement, the cost of nuclear power continues to increase and construction timeframes remain excessive. And we emphasize again that no technological breakthrough to reduce its costs or enhance its operation will occur in the foreseeable future.
Moreover, due to the glacial pace of deployment, the absence of any possibility of strategic technological breakthroughs, and the necessity, as you correctly say, of mitigating climate risks in the near term, nuclear technology is ill-suited to provide any real impact on greenhouse gas emissions in that timeframe. On the contrary, the technologies perfectly positioned now, due to their cost and level of commercialization, to attain decisive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the near term are renewable, energy efficiency, distributed power, demand response, and storage technologies.
Instead of embracing nuclear power, we request that you join us in supporting an electric grid dominated by energy efficiency, renewable, distributed power and storage technologies. We ask you to join us in supporting the phase-out of nuclear power as Germany and other countries are pursuing.
It is simply not feasible for nuclear power to be a part of a sustainable, safe and affordable future for humankind.
We would be pleased to meet with you directly to further discuss these issues, to bring the relevant research on renewable energy and grid integration to a dialog with you. Again, we thank you for your service and contribution to our country’s understanding about climate change.
The energy choices we make going forward must also take into account the financial, air and water impacts and public health and safety. There are alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear power and we welcome a chance to a dialog and debate with each of you.
Sincerely,
Initiators Pam Solo President and CEO Civil Society Institute Newton, MA
Michael Mariotte President Nuclear Information and Resource Service Takoma Park, MD
United States signers Gary Gover Chairman and President Earth Day Mobile Bay, Inc. Fairhope, AL
Carl Wassilie Yupiaq Biologist Alaska's Big Village Network Anchorage, AK
Hal Shepherd Director Center for Water Advocacy Seward, AK
David Druding Peoples' Action for a Safe Environment Parthenon, AR
Stephen Brittle Don’t Waste Arizona Phoenix, AZ
Dave Parrish CEO Operation Save the Earth Phoenix, AZ
Hailey Sherwood NAU Against Uranium Flagstaff, AZ
Jerry B. Brown, Ph.D. Director, Safe Energy Project World Business Academy Santa Barbara, CA
John C. Leddy President U.S. Water and Power Los Angeles, CA
Sister Santussika Bhikkhuni Director Karuna Buddhist Vihara Mountain View, CA
Carol Etoile, Roger Batchelder Co-Directors Organizing for Political and Economic Rights San Diego, CA
Mike Caggiano President Peace Action of San Mateo County San Mateo, CA
Michael Saftler President Advocacy Coalition of Telluride Telluride, CO
Dan Randolph Executive Director San Juan Citizens Alliance Durango, CO
Pete Dronkers Southwest Circuit Rider Earthworks Durango, CO
Bob Kinsey Board Co-Chairperson The Colorado Coalition for the Prevention of Nuclear War Denver, CO
The Science of the Total Environment 317 (2003) 37–51
An unexpected rise in strontium-90 in US deciduous teeth in the 1990s
Joseph J. Manganoa, *, Jay M. Gouldb,1c , Ernest J. Sternglass,2d , Janette D. Sherman,3 , William McDonnelle,4 aRadiation and Public Health Project, 786 Carroll Street, ࠻9, Brooklyn, NY 11215, USA bRadiation and Public Health Project, 302 West 86th Street, ࠻11B, New York, NY 10024, USA cRadiation and Public Health Project, 4601 Fifth Avenue ࠻824, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA dP.O. Box 4605, Alexandria, VA 22303, USA eRadiation and Public Health Project, P.O. Box 60, Unionville, NY 10988, USA
Received 3 March 2003; received in revised form 14 March 2003; accepted 11 July 2003
Abstract
For several decades, the United States has been without an ongoing program measuring levels of fission products in the body. Strontium-90 (Sr-90) concentrations in 2089 deciduous (baby) teeth, mostly from persons living near nuclear power reactors, reveal that average levels rose 48.5% for persons born in the late 1990s compared to those born in the late 1980s. This trend represents the first sustained increase since the early 1960s, before atmospheric weapons tests were banned. The trend was consistent for each of the five states for which at least 130 teeth are available. The highest averages were found in southeastern Pennsylvania, and the lowest in California (San Francisco and Sacramento), neither of which is near an operating nuclear reactor. In each state studied, the average Sr-90 concentration is highest in counties situated closest to nuclear reactors. It is likely that, 40 years after large-scale atmospheric atomic bomb tests ended, much of the current in-body radioactivity represents nuclear reactor emissions. ᮊ 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Radiation; Strontium-90; Nuclear reactors; Deciduous teeth (baby teeth)
*Corresponding author: Tel.: q1-718-857-9825; fax: q1-718-857-4986. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.J. Mangano), [email protected] (J.M. Gould), [email protected] (E.J. Sternglass), [email protected] (J.D. Sherman), [email protected] (W. McDonnell). 1 Tel.: q1-212-496-6787; fax: q1-212-362-0348. 2 Tel.yfax: q1-412-681-6251. 3 Tel.: q1-703-329-8223; fax: q1-703-960-0396. 4 Tel.: q1-845-726-3355.
0048-9697/03/$ - see front matter ᮊ 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0048-9697(03)00439-X 38 J.J. Mangano et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 317 (2003) 37–51
1. Introduction reduction suggested by the 28.7 year half-life of Sr-90 (Rosenthal, 1969).
Since man-made fission products were first After the bone and tooth studies showed such a released into the environment in the mid-1940s, rapid post-1964 decline, federal funding was ter- determining in vivo levels of these radioisotopes minated for each program, and work ceased. The has challenged scientists. Hundreds of radioiso- tooth study ended in 1970, the child bone study in topes are created in nuclear weapon detonations 1971 and the adult bone study in 1982. and in nuclear reactor emissions. Many of these The US studies were accompanied by similar are short-lived, and therefore highly unlikely to international efforts. Each independently con- track in vivo. Collecting samples of longer-lived firmed the American findings of rapid increases in isotopes often involves invasive processes such as teeth until 1964, including studies in Czechoslo- autopsies and biopsies, making collection of sig- vakia, Denmark, Finland and Scotland (Santholzer nificant samples time-consuming and costly. and Knaifl, 1966; Aarkrog, 1968; Rytomaa, 1972; In the US, whose government conducted 206 Fracassini, 2002). Another study in Finland dupli- atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons from 1946 cated the rapid post-1964 plunge in Sr-90 (Koh- to 1962 (100 in Nevada, 106 in the South Pacific) lehmainen and Rytomaa, 1975). No nation (Norris and Cochran, 1994), the federal govern- maintained an ongoing program, but after the ment instituted programs measuring strontium-90 Chernobyl accident, reports from Germany, the (Sr-90) concentrations in vertebrae. One focused Ukraine and Greece documented a substantial rise on deceased adults (begun 1954, 3 cities, ;50 in Sr-90 in baby teeth after the April 1986 disaster bones per year)(Klusek, 1984), while the other (Scholz, 1996; Kulev et al., 1994; Stamoulis et included deceased children and adolescents (begun al., 1999). Another study examined Sr-90 in teeth 1962, 30 cities, ;300 bones per year)(Baratta et from children who lived proximate to the Sellafield al., 1970). Both showed increases to a peak in nuclear installation in northwestern England; 1964, just after the Partial Test Ban Treaty was results are addressed in Section 4 (O’Donnell et signed, and a dramatic decline in the mid- and late al., 1997). 1960s. With no program of in vivo radioactivity to The largest-scale US program studying in-body gauge the burden on the body, levels in the radioactivity was conducted in St. Louis. Kalckar environment can be used as a proxy measure. In suggested that large numbers of deciduous teeth the past, patterns of Sr-90 in baby teeth were could be collected and tested to examine the roughly equivalent to those of Sr-90 in milk buildup of fallout from bomb tests (Kalckar, (Rosenthal et al., 1964). The US government 1958). A coalition of St. Louis medicalyscientific (beginning 1957) began publicly reporting month- professionals and citizens collected over 300 000 ly levels of a variety of radionuclides in milk and teeth from local children from 1958 to 1970. water in 40–60 US locations. However, a number Results from St. Louis were similar to the two of these radioisotopes, including Sr-90, strontium- bone programs, i.e. 89, cesium-137, barium-140 and iodine-131 were discontinued in the early 1990s (National Air and – A 55-fold rise in average millibecquerels (mBq) Radiation Environmental Laboratory, 1975–2001). of Sr-90 per gram calcium at birth (7.4–408.1) One measure that is still publicly reported is the took place for 1949–1950 births (before large- concentration of gross beta particles in precipita- scale tests began) to 1964 births ( just after the tion. A reduction in average beta levels reversed largest-scale bomb tests ended). after 1986–1989. While the most recent 4-year – A 50% decline in Sr-90 concentrations in St. period still features incomplete data, thus far the Louis fetal mandibles occurred from 1964 to increase from 1986–1989 to 1998–2001 has been 1969 births. This far exceeded the expected 9% 53.8%. This difference is significant at P-0.0001, J.J. Mangano et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 317 (2003) 37–51 39
Table 1 Trend in gross beta in precipitation in average millibecquerels per liter of water in 60 US cities, 1978–2001
4-year period Months Number of Average betaa Percent change, available measurements 1986–1989 to 1998–2001b 1978–1981 36 640 211 1982–1985 48 1299 63 1986–1989 46c 1845 58 1990–1993 48 1892 59 1994–1997 48 1696 63 1998–2001 27 836 89 q53.8% (P-0.0001) The P value indicates that the chance that the increase is due to random chance is fewer than 1 in 10 000. Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Radiation Data, quarterly volumes. a Average millibecquerels of gross beta per liter of precipitation (reported by EPA as picocuries; to convert to millibecquerels, multiply by 37). Before 1996, figures were reported as nanocuries per meter squared at a particular depth (in millimeters); to convert to pCiyl, multiply nCi per meter squared times 1000, then divide by millimeters; then multiply by 37 to obtain millibecquerels. b Calculation of change beginning with lowest average (1986–1989) to most current. c Excludes May and June 1986, heavily affected by short-lived Chernobyl fallout. i.e. the probability of this increase due to random approximately 15–20 units are now in use in the chance is less than 1 in 10 000 (Table 1). US (Laxton, Mark, Perkin-Elmer Life Sciences The lack of an ongoing program measuring in Inc., 549 Albany Street, Boston MA 02118. Per- vivo radioactivity levels and an unexpected, sus- sonal correspondence, May 9, 2002). tained rise in environmental beta concentrations The new counter is located on the premises of warrant a resumption of testing in vivo Sr-90 and REMS, Inc., a radiochemistry laboratory in Water- perhaps other radioisotopes, first instituted during loo, and not at the University of Waterloo, thus the era of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing. changing the level of background radiation. Also, In 1996, the Radiation and Public Health Project the method of removing organic material from the (RPHP) began a study of Sr-90 levels in deciduous teeth was changed by treating them with hydrogen teeth, focused on persons living near nuclear reac- peroxide prior to grinding them into powder. This tors. The goal of this project was to build a current procedure proved to be more effective in allowing database of in vivo radioactivity documenting Sr- light produced in the liquid scintillation fluid by 90 patterns and trends. While Sr-90 is just one of the beta particles emitted by the Sr-90 and its hundreds of radioisotopes from fission, it can be daughter product, Yttrium-90, to reach the photo- used as a proxy for all fission products, especially multipliers. This greater efficiency is caused partly those with extended half-lives. by shifting the spectrum of the light emitted by the scintillation fluid. As a result of these changes (the counter, its location, level of background 2. Materials and methods radiation and method of cleaning teeth), the effi- ciency of detecting the very low radioactivity in single teeth was more than doubled overall. How- Earlier reports addressed methods used and ini- ever, the data lack a consistent factor that could tial findings from the baby tooth study (Gould et be used to analyze teeth from both counters togeth- al., 2000a,b; Mangano et al., 2000). These teeth er. Thus, this report will be based solely on the were processed using a scintillation counter from 2089 deciduous teeth tested after June 2000. the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. In RPHP sends teeth to REMS for testing, and Sr- June of 2000, RPHP leased a Perkin-Elmer 1220- 90 levels are measured individually. Lab personnel 003 Quantulus Ultra Low-Level Liquid Scintilla- are blinded about all information concerning each tion Spectrometer. Introduced in 1995, only tooth, that is, they know nothing about character- 40 J.J. Mangano et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 317 (2003) 37–51
Table 2 Average millibecquerels of Sr-90 per gram calcium (at birth) in deciduous teeth from St. Louis, 1954 and 1959 births (test for internal consistency)
Batch Average % 1959 Counting error 95% confidence Sr-90a over 1954 interval ࠻1 1954 61 "10 41–81 1959 121 q98 "13 95–147 ࠻2 1954 65 "11 43–87 1959 124 q90 "14 96–152 a Average millibecquerels of Sr-90 per gram of calcium. istics of the tooth donor. This blinding helps assure samples of 10 teeth, each into two batches, and objectivity in results. The laboratory measures the asked REMS to calculate average Sr-90 levels concentration of Sr-90 by calculating the current separately. Results, shown in Table 2, documented activity (in mBq) of Sr-90 per gram of calcium in the 1959 average to be 98 and 90% higher than each tooth (mBq Sr-90ygCa). (See Appendix A the 1954 average. Confidence intervals showed for more specific technical procedures.) The stron- considerable overlap, indicating that study results tium-to-calcium ratio has been used in the St. are consistent both internally and with the earlier Louis study in the 1960s, and all other recent baby St. Louis study. tooth studies mentioned earlier. A third test for accuracy involved several dozen The laboratory returns results to RPHP staff, teeth from persons born in the Philippines Islands who converts the ratio to that at birth, using the 1991–1992. This area has never had a nuclear Sr-90 half-life of 28.7 years. The Sr-90yCa ratio reactor (for weapons, power or research). It may for a single tooth is not a precise number because have received fallout from Chinese atmospheric a typical baby tooth is small in mass. The counting bomb tests, but there were many fewer of these error for each tooth is plus or minus 26 mBq, and than US tests. Chinese atmospheric tests ended in somewhat less for the larger teeth. 1980, and the last below-ground test occurred in RPHP conducted several tests to assure the inter- 1993. Thus, Philippino teeth should contain lower laboratory reliability and internal consistency of concentrations of this radioisotope than American its results. It selected 10 teeth from persons born teeth. in 1954 in St. Louis that were tested both by Thirteen teeth of Philippino children born in REMS and the University of Georgia Center for 1991 and 1992 were tested. The average concen- Applied Isotope Studies, which operates three tration at birth was 75 mBq Sr-90yg Ca, or 41% counters of the same model. REMS dried the 10 lower than the 127 mean level for American teeth and ground them into a powder. After testing children born in those years. for Sr-90 levels, the entire batch was sent to the RPHP collects teeth through voluntary dona- University of Georgia, which tested a dissolved tions, mostly from parents of children who have solution of teeth. Both labs were blinded from recently shed a deciduous tooth. Donors submit each other’s results. The data were relatively com- teeth in envelopes containing identifying informa- parable. REMS’ average was 65 mBq Sr-90ygCa tion on the child and parents. RPHP staff assigns (CIs43–87), while University of Georgia’s tally each tooth a unique tracking number. The group was 79 mBqygCa(CIs56–102). sent nearly 100 000 unsolicited letters appealing REMS also performed a second test, for internal for tooth donation to families with children age consistency. Prior results from the St. Louis study 6–17. These mailings occurred in California (Sac- indicated that average 1959 Sr-90 levels were ramento and San Luis Obispo counties), Florida considerably higher than those for 1954, due to (Dade and Port St. Lucie counties) and New York buildup in bomb test fallout. RPHP split two (Rockland and Westchester counties). Families J.J. Mangano et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 317 (2003) 37–51 41
Table 3 Average millibecquerels of Sr-90 per gram calcium in deciduous teeth (at birth) by state (all persons and persons born after 1979)
State Teeth Average Sr-90a Counting error All persons PA 133 155 "14 Oth 492 146 "7 NY 557 141 "6 NJ 271 139 "9 FL 485 131 "6 CA 151 114 "10 TOT 2089 139 "3 Persons born after 1979 PA 130 154 "14 NY 534 138 "6 FL 471 130 "6 Oth 417 130 "6 NJ 244 125 "8 CA 138 108 "10 TOT 1934 132 "3 See Appendix B for explanation of error calculation. a Average millibecquerels of Sr-90 per gram of calcium. receiving letters were randomly selected by zip tions—by birth year, by state, etc.—will likely be code in each county, that is, every nth family in discernible. each zip code received a letter. Just over 1% of these mailings were returned with a baby tooth 3. Results enclosed. Teeth are geographically classified by the zip 3.1. By state code where the mother resided during pregnancy, rather than the current residence. The large major- A total of 2089 teeth were tested for Sr-90, and ity of Sr-90 uptake in a baby tooth occurs during are discussed in this paper (another 1335 had been the fetal and early infant periods (Rosenthal, tested previously using a different scintillation 1969), making zip code during pregnancy the counter and method). As discussed, the two sets appropriate geographic identifier. of results are each internally consistent, but not Other teeth were collected from persons who comparable with each other because of differences became familiar with the project through media in the counter, its location, level of background articles and stories, and through the group’s web radiation and method of cleaning teeth, so only site. Thus, the teeth are not necessarily represen- the last 2089 teeth are used. Of these, 1592 (77%) tative of the US population at large. The vast were from children born in the five states men- majority is concentrated in only five states (Cali- tioned earlier, each with at least 133 teeth studied. fornia, Florida, New Jersey, New York and Penn- No other state has more than 34 teeth. Table 3 sylvania), near nuclear reactors. Most were shows the comparative average Sr-90 concentra- donated from children who have just recently lost tions by state. a tooth, or those between age 5 and 13. Despite Table 3 also displays averages by state only for these shortcomings, the large number of teeth will persons born after 1979. The large buildup from enable meaningful analysis of average Sr-90 con- above-ground nuclear weapons tests reached a centrations to be performed; and any major varia- peak in 1964, and fell by approximately half over 42 J.J. Mangano et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 317 (2003) 37–51
Table 4 Average millibecquerels of Sr-90 per gram calcium in deciduous teeth (at birth) by proximity to nuclear power plants (persons born after 1979)
Nuclear power Proximate Average Sr-90a (No. teeth) % Difference plant, location counties average Sr-90 Proximate Other state
Indian Point, Buchanan NY Putnam, Rockland, 164 (217) 121 (317) q35.8% P-0.001 (2 reactors, startup 1973, 1976) Westchester, NY "11 "7 Limerick, Pottstown PA Berks, Chester, 168 (98)b 110 (32) q53.2% P-0.03 (2 reactors, startup 1984, 1989) Montgomery, PA "17 "20 Turkey Point, Florida City FL Broward, Dade, 129 (350) 93 (24) q38.6% P-0.08 (2 reactors, startup 1972, 1973) Palm Beach, FL "7 "20 St. Lucie, Hutchinson Island FL Indian River, Martin, 143 (97) 93 (24) q53.8% P-0.04 (2 reactors, startup 1976, 1983) St. Lucie, FL "15 "20 Oyster Creek, Forked River NJ Monmouth, Ocean, NJ 128 (169) 119 (75) q8.1% (1 reactor, startup 1969) "10 "14 Diablo Canyon, Avila Beach CA San Luis Obispo, 127 (50)b 97 (88) q30.8% (2 reactors, startup 1984, 1985) Santa Barbara, CA "19 "11 Counting error listed for each sample of teeth. See Appendix B for explanation of standard error calculation, Appendix C for significance testing. Source: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (www.nrc.gov), obtained August 12, 1999, for reactor locations and startup dates. a Average millibecquerels of Sr-90 per gram of calcium. b In three counties near Limerick, 94 of 98 teeth were from persons born after startup (average 168). In two counties near Diablo Canyon, 47 of 50 teeth were from persons born after startup (average 135). the next 5 years. Thus, continued decline of Sr-90 radionuclide. Average Sr-90 concentration for all from bomb test fallout should have reached a level teeth was 132 mBq Sr-90yg Ca, and state averages approaching zero by about 1980, and averages ranged from a high of 154 in Pennsylvania to a should largely represent current sources of this low of 108 in California.
Fig. 1. Average Sr-90 in baby teeth, US, by proximity to nuclear plants (persons born 1980–1997). J.J. Mangano et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 317 (2003) 37–51 43
Table 5 Average Sr-90 concentration (by birth year), US, in deciduous teeth (at birth)
Birth year No. teeth Average Sr-90a Counting error 1954–1957 6 191 "78 1958–1961 8 331 "117 1962–1965 8 351 "124 1966–1969 17 272 "66 1970–1973 38 222 "36 1974–1977 38 211 "34 1978–1981 78 140 "16 1982–1985 172 140 "11 1986–1989 532 109 "5 1990–1993 836 132 "5 1994–1997 346 162 "9 % Change, 1986–1989 to 1994–1997 q48.5% P-0.0001 Note: Most teeth are from states of CA, FL, NJ, NY and PA. See Appendix B for explanation of error calculation, Appendix C for significance testing. a Average millibecquerels of Sr-90 per gram of calcium.
3.2. By proximity to nuclear reactors For each of the six areas, the local average of Sr-90 exceeded that for the remainder of the state. The question of whether those living closest to Three of the six differences are significant at P- nuclear plants have higher burdens of radioactivity 0.05, with one other of borderline significance was addressed. Most teeth from residents close to (P-0.08). Aside from a 8.1% excess near the nuclear plants—defined as counties situated mostly Oyster Creek plant in central New Jersey, average or completely within 40 miles—include six nuclear Sr-90 concentrations near the other five reactors installations, described in Table 4 and Fig. 1. ranged from 30.8 to 53.8% above other counties Average Sr-90 concentrations are compared with in these states. Two parts of California can be those from all counties in the remainder of the considered relatively unexposed control areas. One state, which are farther from reactors. is composed of Sacramento and El Dorado, close
Fig. 2. Average Sr-90 in baby teeth, US, 1954–1997 (mostly CA, FL, NJ, NY, PA). 44 J.J. Mangano et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 317 (2003) 37–51
Table 6 Trend in Sr-90 concentration after 1981 in deciduous teeth, at birth by birth year, by state
Birth year No. teeth Average Sr-90ay No. teeth Average Sr-90aycounting counting error error California Florida 1982–1985 12 104 "31 63 133 "17 1986–1989 50 93 "14 102 112 "11 1990–1993 53 112 "16 192 127 " 9 1994–1997 20 139 "32 99 153 "16 % Change 1986–1989 to 1994–1997 q50.2% q36.3% P-0.04 New Jersey New York 1982–1985 19 117 "27 41 153 "24 1986–1989 71 105 "14 142 120 "10 1990–1993 109 132 "13 237 128 " 9 1994–1997 39 144 "23 104 184 "18 % Change 1986–1989 to 1994–1997 q36.5% q53.6% P-0.002 Pennsylvania All other 1982–1985 6 293 "120 31 134 "24 1986–1989 32 125 "23 135 100 "9 1990–1993 52 152 "21 193 141 "10 1994–1997 36 160 "27 48 159 "23 % Change 1986–1989 to 1994–1997 q27.7% q59.0% P-0.02 See Appendix B for explanation of error calculation, Appendix C for significance testing. a Average millibecquerels of Sr-90 per gram of calcium. to the Rancho Seco nuclear plant, which closed in after 1979 near Diablo Canyon have the highest June 1989. The other is the San Francisco Bay Sr-90 concentration in the state (127 mBqygCa), area, which lies approximately 80 miles from followed by those near the closed Rancho Seco Rancho Seco and 210 miles from the Diablo plant (106 mBqyg Ca, 27 teeth), and the San Canyon plant. The 50 teeth from persons born Francisco Bay area (87 mBqyg Ca, 23 teeth).
Fig. 3. Average Sr-90 in baby teeth, by state (persons born 1982–1997). J.J. Mangano et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 317 (2003) 37–51 45
3.3. Temporal trends—total greater meaning when data from each state are analyzed. ‘National’ data essentially include only Temporal trends in average in vivo Sr-90 con- five states, and thus may or may not be represen- centrations were also analyzed. The earlier St. tative of the entire US. However, for post-1981 Louis study documented a 50% decline in average births, each of the five states duplicates the same Sr-90 concentration in fetal mandibles in the 5 trend; a reduction to a post-Test Ban low in 1986– years after the Limited Test Ban Treaty went into 1989, followed by two successive increases in the effect (Rosenthal, 1969). The adult bone (verte- following 4-year periods. The geographic disparity brae) program administered by the US government of these areas suggests that the trend may apply showed a similar decline, followed by a more nation-wide, at least in areas near nuclear reactors, modest reduction since the mid-1970s; this pro- from which most study teeth were donated. Table gram was small in scope, and ceased in 1982 6 and Fig. 3 display these consistent trends, which (Klusek, 1984). The teeth analyzed in this report also occurred for the ‘all other’ categories (teeth represent persons born primarily in the 1980s and from children in areas other than the five focus 1990s, providing data for a population not hereto- states). Rises during the 1990s vary from 27.7 to fore addressed. 59.0%. Increases in Florida, New York and ‘other’ Table 5 and Fig. 2 display the trend in average states are significant (P-0.05). Sr-90 concentrations from the mid-1950s to the late 1990s. The trends established by earlier anal- yses (a rise until the mid-1960s followed by a 3.5. Temporal trends—by counties decline until the early 1980s) were duplicated, even with a limited number of teeth studied prior to 1980. The new findings for those children born The trends in states were also consistent for the after 1981, who contributed 91% of all samples in counties (or clusters of counties) that donated the the study, showed that the decline continued until most teeth to the study (Table 7). These include the period 1986–1989. Four-year birth cohorts are MonmouthyOcean County, NJ (closest to the Oys- used here to maximize numbers of teeth and ter Creek plant), Dade County, FL (site of the smooth trends. In 1986–1989, the lowest average Turkey Point plant) and PutnamyRocklandy Sr-90 concentration in the study was observed Westchester Counties, NY (which converge at the (109 mBq Sr-90ygCa), well below the 351 mBq Indian Point plant). Increases from 1986–1989 to Sr-90yg Ca observed in the mid-1960s. This long- 1994–1997 ranged from 49.8 to 55.7%, with the term decline was followed by an increase of 48.5% Florida and New York counties achieving statistical in the next two 4-year periods, ending with an significance (P-0.05). The only slight exception average of 162 mBq Sr-90yg Ca for the 1994– to this trend was that all of MonmouthyOcean 1997 birth cohort (P-0.0001). Although trends County’s increase took place in the early 1990s. for individual years are less reliable due to fewer teeth, the lowest average was reached in 1986 (94 mBq Sr-90yg Ca for 76 teeth) and the highest 4. Discussion average thereafter occurred in 1996 (195 mBq Sr- 90yg Ca for 30 teeth), an increase of 107% (P- 0.007). Only six teeth for births after 1996 have The US has conducted no official program been analyzed to date. measuring in vivo levels of fission products for over 20 years. This report introduces current data on patterns and trends of Sr-90 concentration in 3.4. Temporal trends—by state US baby teeth, mostly near nuclear power instal- lations. The average concentration of Sr-90 was The unexpected and abrupt reversal of declines 132 mBq Sr-90yg Ca for all children born after in Sr-90 concentration in US baby teeth takes on 1979, when in vivo Sr-90 remaining from atomic 46 J.J. Mangano et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 317 (2003) 37–51
Table 7 Trend in Sr-90 concentration after 1981 in deciduous teeth (at birth) by birth year, by county (counties with the largest sample sizes)
Birth year No. teeth Average Sr-90a Counting error Dade County FL 1982–1985 47 141 "21 1986–1989 57 94 "13 1990–1993 106 124 "12 1994–1997 43 141 "22 % Change 1986–1989 to 1994–1997 q50.6% P-0.057 Monmouth, Ocean Counties NJ 1982–1985 13 150 "40 1986–1989 44 93 "14 1990–1993 76 140 "16 1994–1997 31 139 "25 % Change 1986–1989 to 1994–1997 q49.8% Putnam, Rockland, Westchester Counties NY 1982–1985 17 202 "50 1986–1989 43 135 "21 1990–1993 101 148 "15 1994–1997 52 211 "30 % Change 1986–1989 to 1994–1997 q55.7% P-0.04 See Appendix B for explanation of error calculation, Appendix C for significance testing. a Average millibecquerels of Sr-90 per gram of calcium. bomb tests should approach 0.5 This concentration tion. We observed a 48.5% higher concentration is lower than that in those born before 1980, when in 1994–1997 births over 1986–1989 births (162 bomb test fallout accounted for a substantial pro- vs. 109 mBq Sr-90ygCa), a trend consistent for portion of in vivo radioactivity. However, it each of five states (and counties in these states exceeds the levels before the large-scale testing near nuclear reactors) included in this study. This began in 1951 in Nevada (Rosenthal, 1969). temporal change cannot represent the continued Long-term declines first slowed in the 1982– decay of old bomb test fallout from Nevada; rather, 1985 period, when no change was observed from it probably represents rising amounts of a currently the previous 4 years. The reason(s) for this depar- produced source of environmental radioactivity ture is not certain. The decline resumed into the entering the body. Current sources of Sr-90, a man- period 1986–1989. made fission product, are limited during the 1990s, The most dramatic and unexpected finding in and most are not likely to account for recently this report is the reversal after the late 1980s of rising levels of Sr-90 in baby teeth. decades-long declines in average Sr-90 concentra- (1) Fallout from the 1986 Chernobyl accident (including Sr-90) entered the US environment, 5 Stamoulis et al. (1999) contains a chart summarizing raising levels of long-lived radionuclides, but these trends in Sr-90 in deciduous teeth from various European nations and the Soviet Union. The chart shows that, from a returned to pre-1986 levels within 3 years (Man- level of approximately 10 mBqyg Ca in 1951, a peak of 250 gano, 1997; National Air and Radiation Environ- was reached in 1964, similar to the US trend. By 1975, the mental Laboratory, 1975–2001). For example, a average level had fallen to approximately 30 (three times the rise of 98–311 mBq Cesium-137yl in pasteurized 1951 average) and was still declining. Three times the 1951 milk occurred in 60 US cities from May–June US average of just over 7 means that the 1975 US Sr-90 average should have been approximately 22. But the actual 1985 to May–June 1986, when Chernobyl fallout 1975 average found by RPHP was 183 (12 teeth), and 198 levels in the US peaked. This concentration in the for 29 teeth from 1974–1976 births. same 2-month period in the following years J.J. Mangano et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 317 (2003) 37–51 47 declined to 242, 155 and 81 mBq Cs-137yl, (7) Reprocessing of nuclear fuels also creates returning to pre-Chernobyl levels in 1989. Because fission products, but was ceased in the US in the Cs-137 has a half-life (30 years) similar to Sr-90 late 1970s, and is not a factor in recent rises in (28.7 years), it is logical that environmental (and Sr-90. thus, in vivo) Sr-90 from Chernobyl followed the The only other source of Sr-90 that can explain same general pattern. this steady and dramatic rise in the 1990s is Another factor suggesting Chernobyl fallout emissions from nuclear power reactors. Because probably does not account for the fact that post- reactors operated a greater percentage of the time, 1989 Sr-90 increases in baby teeth is the consistent average annual generation of electricity rose 37.5% finding of higher Sr-90 concentrations near nuclear from 475 000 to 653 000 GW h from 1986–1989 power plants. Chernobyl fallout levels varied by vs. 1994–1997, an increase not markedly different geographic area, with the northwest US (where from the 48.5% rise in average Sr-90 levels at there is only one nuclear power reactor, in Wash- birth (US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2001). ington state) receiving the highest level of radio- Determining the extent of the correlation between nuclide deposits. these two trends requires more precise (2) The increase probably does not represent investigation. high-level nuclear waste generated by reactors, Another major finding is that the counties locat- which is generally stored in deep pools of cooled ed within 40 miles of each of six nuclear reactors water or in casks below or above ground. Despite have consistently higher Sr-90 levels than other the leakage of some casks, the radioactivity con- counties in the same state. These counties were tained in the waste is currently not in the food selected to generally correspond with those used chain. by the US National Cancer Institute in a study of (3) Academic-based research reactors also pro- cancer near nuclear plants (Jablon et al., 1990). duce fission products. However, these reactors are The excess near each nuclear plant ranged, with small in size and few (and declining) in number, one exception, from 30.8 to 53.8% higher. More which makes it an unlikely reason accounting for study, assessing whether locally produced radio- such a widespread and sustained trend in Sr-90 in activity entering the body from inhalation andyor bodies. locally produced food and water account for these (4) Nuclear submarines produce fission prod- consistent differences, is merited. Findings on ucts, but they are either contained within the doses near reactors should be compared with health submarine or released into the ocean. Thus, this is data. For example, childhood cancer rates near 14 not a source of Sr-90 in the food chain, and not a of 14 eastern US reactors exceed the national rate reason for the rise documented in this report. (Mangano et al., 2003). (5) Emissions from nuclear weapons plants This analysis of proximity arrives at a different account for another source of Sr-90. However, all conclusion than an earlier report (O’Donnell et al., reactors involved with producing nuclear weapons 1997) that found no correlation between distance ceased manufacturing operations by 1991, and are from the Sellafield nuclear plant in western Eng- not likely to play a role in rising Sr-90 concentra- land and Sr-90 levels in baby teeth. That study tions after that time. used a regression equation to test this relationship. (6) While the last above-ground atomic bomb There are methodological and analytical differenc- test took place in 1962, subterranean tests at the es between the two studies. O’Donnell considered Nevada Test Site continued. Some of these tests teeth from as far as 300 miles from Sellafield, vented radioactivity into the atmosphere. These without taking into account Sr-90 produced by emissions were much smaller than the atmospheric reactors other than Sellafield, while this report tests, and the last such test occurred in September used only the counties most proximate (within 40 1992 (Norris and Cochran, 1994), making it an miles) to reactors. That report tested teeth in unlikely contributor to increases in Sr-90 through- batches, while this study used individual readings. out the 1990s. Factors other than distance from the radiation 48 J.J. Mangano et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 317 (2003) 37–51 source may influence Sr-90 levels in vivo. The gender and race can be performed in future studies. uptake of radioactivity in fetal tooth buds depends Some factors that affect in vivo levels are already on intake during pregnancyyearly infancy and known. For example, children who are breast-fed transfer from maternal bone stores, which vary accumulate lower Sr-90 concentrations than do from person to person. These in turn can be bottle-fed infants (Rosenthal, 1969). Other dietary dependent on food and water source, along with differences and their effects on Sr-90 levels can dietary differences. be further explored in future research. A third major finding is that average Sr-90 Despite the consistency of results across geo- concentrations vary geographically. Children from graphic areas, substantial numbers of teeth were Pennsylvania (mostly near Pottstown, close to tested from only 5 of 50 US states. More teeth Philadelphia) who donated teeth had the highest from other states would enhance knowledge about average Sr-90 of the five states studied. Pottstown recent patterns of in vivo radioactivity. For exam- lies within 70 miles of 11 operating (and 2 closed) ple, 19 of the 50 US states (many in the western reactors, a concentration unmatched in the US. US) have no operating nuclear reactors, and may California, especially areas not close to nuclear display patterns of Sr-90 different than the five reactors, is the state with the lowest average Sr- already analyzed. The comparison could be extend- 90. There are only four nuclear reactors on the ed to nations with no operating nuclear reactors entire west coast in operation since 1992, com- (such as the Philippino teeth mentioned in this pared to dozens in the northeast. report). Testing the hypothesis that these states At present (pending more detailed study), nucle- have lower levels of Sr-90 would be appropriate ar power reactors appear to be the most likely and necessary in future reporting of results. source explaining the recent unexpected rise in Sr- The study did not collect sufficient teeth to 90 concentrations, and elevated Sr-90 levels near- compare local Sr-90 levels before and after a est the plants. The geographic consistency and nuclear reactor opens. The hypothesis that opening longevity of these trends and patterns, plus the a reactor will raise average in vivo concentrations large number of teeth studied, make these patterns and closing a reactor will reduce them should be meaningful and (in many instances) statistically tested. significant. The fact that gross beta in US precip- A potential follow-up to this report is to institute itation continued to rise after 1997 and that the a public program measuring in vivo levels in highest average Sr-90 level since a low point was humans andyor animals near nuclear plants for the reached in 1986 occurred in the most recent birth first time. In addition, more radionuclides in the year studied (1996, 195 mBq Sr-90ygCain30 environment (air, water, soil, etc.) may be tracked. teeth) suggest that this trend may continue in the The US government maintains such records near near future. nuclear plants, but has phased out public reporting of several isotopes and failed to perform any long- 5. Study limitationsyopportunities for further term analysis. study The data presented herein describe past and current patterns of radioactivity in children’s teeth. This report represents the first large-scale study The three in vivo programs of measuring Sr-90 in of US in vivo levels of radioactivity in several US teeth and bones were never accompanied by decades. Although the initial findings presented any reports assessing potential health risks from here are important ones, they raise various ques- this radioactivity. The current tooth study previ- tions that should be addressed in future research. ously documented that average Sr-90 levels and Other unexplored factors may help explain the childhood cancer rates followed similar trends temporal trends affected here. For example, the during atmospheric bomb testing in the 1950s and current study collected auxiliary data on mother’s 1960s. In addition, on Long Island, New York, age at delivery and source of drinking water. recent Sr-90 trends correlate closely to trends in Analyzing results by basic characteristics such as childhood cancer incidence, after a 3-year latency J.J. Mangano et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 317 (2003) 37–51 49 period (Gould et al., 2000a). Thus, comparing which 0.1 ml is set aside for the determination of radioactivity and health patterns should be central calcium. The remaining 1.9 ml is mixed with 9.1 to any follow-up of this analysis. ml of scintillation cocktail Ultima Gold AB, sup- plied by Packard Bioscience BV in a special vial Acknowledgments for counting. A blank with appropriate amounts of Ca2q , Sr2q and Y3q is prepared for recording the Jerry Brown, Ph.D., is acknowledged for his background. contribution in collecting baby teeth in southeast- The activity in the vial with the dissolved tooth ern Florida. is counted four times, 100 min each time, for a total of 400 min, with the scintillation spectrome- Appendix A: Determination of Sr-90 to calcium ter, to improve accuracy of results. The background ratio count-rate in the 400–1000 channels is 2.25"0.02 countsymin. The background has been counted for Sr-90 in deciduous teeth was determined under over 5000 min so that the error associated with the direction of Hari D. Sharma, Professor Emeri- the background measurement is approximately 1%. tus of Radiochemistry and president of REMS, The overall uncertainty or one sigma associated Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Employing a with the measurement of Sr-90 per gram of calcium 1220-003 Quantulus Ultra Low-Level Liquid Scin- is "26 mBqyg Ca. tillation Spectrometer manufactured by the Perkin- The efficiency of counting was established using Elmer Company in Massachusetts, Dr Sharma a calibrated solution of Sr-90yY-90 obtained from followed the following procedure. the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Water-washed teeth were treated with 30% using the following procedure. The calibrated solu- hydrogen peroxide for a period of 24 h to ensure tion is diluted in water containing a few milligrams that organic material adhering to teeth was oxi- of Sr2q solution, and the count-rate from an aliquot dized. Teeth were then scrubbed with a hard brush of the solution is recorded in channel numbers for removing oxidized organic material and the ranging from 400 to 1000 in order to determine fillings. Teeth were then dried at 110 8C for several the counting efficiency for the beta particles emit- minutes and then ground to a fine powder (ball ted by Sr-90 and Y-90. It is ensured that the Y-90 mill). It is very important to remove any filling is in secular equilibrium with its parent Sr-90 in because if left behind inside a tooth, it tends to the solution. The counting efficiency was found to give colored solution or dissolution in a mineral be 1.67 counts per decay of Sr-90 with 1.9 ml of acid. The presence of colored solution reduces the Sr-90yY-90 solution with 25 mg of Ca2q , 5 mg of efficiency of counting. Sr2q , 2 mg of Y3q and 9.1 ml of the scintillation Approximately 0.1 g of the powder is weighed cocktail. in a vial, then digested for a few hours with 0.5 The calcium content was determined by using ml of concentrated nitric acid along with solutions an Inductively Coupled Plasma instrument. The containing 5 mg of Sr2q and 2 mg of Y3q carriers analysis is provided to REMS, Inc., by the Uni- at approximately 110 8C on a sand bath. The versity of Waterloo laboratories. REMS is located solution is not evaporated to dryness. The digested at P.O. Box 33030, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, powder is transferred to a centrifuge tube by N2T2M9. rinsing with tritium-free water. Carbonates of Sr, Y and Ca are precipitated by addition of a saturated Appendix B: Calculation of counting error for solution of sodium carbonate, and then centrifuged. Sr-90 in baby teeth due to laboratory observa- The carbonates are repeatedly washed with a dilute tion and sample size solution of sodium carbonate to remove any col- oration from the precipitate. The precipitate is In Tables 3–7, the counting error for average dissolved in hydrochloric acid, and the pH is concentrations of Sr-90 is calculated for each state adjusted to 1.5–2 to make a volume of 2 ml, of as a combination of two variables: the error due 50 J.J. Mangano et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 317 (2003) 37–51 to laboratory observation and the error due to Counties near Indian point: "{}1y6217 =164 sample size. Calculating each of these errors are s11.1 (rounded to 11) as follows, using all 133 teeth (average mBq Sr- 90yg Cas155) from Pennsylvania as an example. Other counties in New York state: "{}1y6317 These data appear in Table 3. =121s6.8 (rounded to 7) Lab observation: The count of mBq of Sr-90 is not an exact one, but carries an uncertainty due to {}164y121 y6(1122q7 )s(45y13.04)s3.45 limitations of the counter. The error range for an individual tooth is "26 mBq, a conservative In a basic statistics table, 3.45 standard devia- estimate that may be lower for teeth with larger tions (z score) indicate a P value of -0.001, i.e. mass. Thus, the lab observation error for a sample there is less thana1in1000 chance that the of 133 teeth is difference is due to random chance. In Tables 5–7, the significance of differences in 26 mBqy6Ns26 mBqy6133s2.25 mBq average Sr-90 concentrations from 1986–1989 to 1994–1997 were tested using a similar technique. Sample size: The error due to the sample size is For example, using Florida data in Table 6
1y6Ns1y6133s13.44 mBq 1986y1989; for 102 teeth, average mBq Sr-90yg Cas112 Calculation: The squares of the two results are added quadratically. Thus, 1994y1997; for 99 teeth, average mBq Sr-90yg Cas153 6((2.25)22q(13.44)) 1986 1989 " 1 102 =112 11.1 s13.63 mBq (rounded to 14) y s µyy ∂s (rounded to 11) With an average Sr-90 concentration for the 133 teeth of 155 mBqyg Ca, the confidence interval is 1994y1997s"µ1yy99∂=153s15.4 between 127 and 183, or 155 plus or minus 28 (2 (rounded to 15) times 14). Thus, there is a 95% chance that the 22 actual average of the entire population falls within {}153y112 y6(11 q15 )s2.20 127 and 183. In a basic statistics table, 2.20 standard devia- Appendix C: Calculation of significance of dif- tions (z score) indicate a P value of -0.04, i.e. ferences in Sr-90 averages between counties there is less than a 4 in 100 chance that the near reactors and more distant counties difference is due to random chance.
In Table 4, average Sr-90 concentrations in teeth References from counties near nuclear reactors were compared Aarkrog A. Strontium-90 in shed deciduous teeth collected in with averages from other counties in the same Denmark, the Faroes, and Greenland from children born in state. The significance of differences between the 1950–1958. Health Phys 1968;15:105. two means was calculated using a t-test. Baratta EJ, Ferri ES, Wall MA. Strontium-90 in human bones For example, the mean Sr-90 concentration for in the United States, 1962–1966. Radiol Health Data counties closest to the Indian Point reactor was 1970;April:183 –186. 164 mBqygCa(217 teeth), compared to 121 (317 Fracassini C. The cancer time bomb facing Scots born during Cold War. A January 20, 2002 article, obtained January 21, teeth) for other counties in New York State. The 2002 at http:yynews.scotsman.comyscotland.cfm. formula used for the significance of this difference Gould JM, Sternglass EJ, Sherman JS, Brown JB, McDonnell is as follows: W, Mangano JJ. Strontium-90 in deciduous teeth as a factor J.J. Mangano et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 317 (2003) 37–51 51
in early childhood cancer. Int J Health Serv 2000;30:515 – Norris RS, Cochran TB. United States nuclear tests, July 1945 539. to 31 December 1992. Washington: Natural Resources Gould JM, Sternglass EJ, Mangano JJ, McDonnell W, Sherman Defense Council, 1994. p. 58. JD, Brown J. The strontium-90 baby teeth study and O’Donnell RG, Mitchell PI, Priest ND, Strange L, Fox A, childhood cancer. Eur J Oncol 2000;5:119 –125. Henshaw DL, Long SC. Variations in the concentration of Jablon S, Hrubec Z, Boice JD, Stone BJ. Cancer in Populations plutonium, strontium-90 and total alpha-emitters in human Living Near Nuclear Facilities. National Cancer Institute: teeth collected within the British Isles. Sci Total Environ NIH Publication 90-874. Washington DC: US Government 1997;201:235 –243. Printing Office; 1990. Rosenthal HL. Accumulation of environmental strontium-90 Kalckar HM. An international milk teeth radiation census. in teeth of children. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Nature 1958;August:283 –284. Hanford Biology Symposium at Richland Washington, May Klusek CS. Strontium-90 in human bone in the US, 1982. 5–8, 1969. Washington DC: US Atomic Energy Commis- New York: US Department of Energy, 1984, Report No. sion; 1969. EML-435, p. 1–27. Rosenthal HL, Austin S, O’Neill S, Takeuchi K, Bird JT, Kohlehmainen L, Rytomaa I. Strontium-90 in deciduous teeth Gilster JE. Incorporation of fall-out strontium-90 in decid- in Finland: a follow-up study. Acta Odontol Scand uous incisors and foetal bone. Nature 1964;August:616 – 1975;33:107 –110. 617. Kulev YD, Polikarpov GG, Prigodey EV, Assimakopoulos PA. Rytomaa I. Strontium-90 in deciduous teeth collected in Strontium-90 concentrations in human teeth in South northern Finland from children born in 1952–1964. Acta Ukraine, 5 years after the Chernobyl accident. Sci Total Odontol Scand 1972;30:219 –233. Environ 1994;155:214 –219. Mangano JJ. Childhood leukaemia in US may have risen due Santholzer W, Knaifl J. Strontium-90 content of deciduous to fallout from Chernobyl. BMJ 1997;314:1200. human teeth. Nature 1966;212:820. Mangano JJ, Sternglass EJ, Gould JM, Sherman JD, Brown J, Scholz R. Ten years after Chernobyl: The rise of strontium-90 McDonnell W. Strontium-90 in newborns and childhood in baby teeth. Munich: The Otto Hug Radiation Institute, disease. Arch Environ Health 2000;55:240 –245. distributed with permission from the German branch of the Mangano JJ, Sherman J, Chang C, Dave A, Feinberg E, Frimer International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War; M. Elevated childhood cancer incidence proximate to U.S. 1996. nuclear power plants. Arch Environ Health 2003;58(2):1 – Stamoulis KC, Assimakopoulos PA, Ioannides KG, Johnson 8. E, Soucacos PN. Strontium-90 concentration measurements National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory. Envi- in human bones and teeth in Greece. Sci Total Environ ronmental Radiation Data Report. Montgomery AL: US 1999;229:165 –182. Environmental Protection Agency, quarterly volumes, 1975– US Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Information Digest 2000 2001. Edition, Available from: www.nrc.gov, May 7, 2001. 1/22/2014 Ta & F a c O :: I a D a a C Ca c R c a N c a P a C U S a - A c E a H
Selec La g age
:// . a .c / /ab /10.1080/00039890209602913#.U C 6 DT aS 1/2 1/22/2014 Ta & F a c O :: I a D a a C Ca c R c a N c a P a C U S a - A c E a H
:// . a .c / /ab /10.1080/00039890209602913#.U C 6 DT aS 2/2 1/16/2014 Wri ings of Dr. Ernes J. S ernglass
h p:// .radia ion.org/reading/ejs ernglassp bs.h ml 1/6 1/16/2014 Wri ings of Dr. Ernes J. S ernglass
h p:// .radia ion.org/reading/ejs ernglassp bs.h ml 2/6 1/16/2014 Wri ings of Dr. Ernes J. S ernglass
h p:// .radia ion.org/reading/ejs ernglassp bs.h ml 3/6 1/16/2014 Wri ings of Dr. Ernes J. S ernglass
h p:// .radia ion.org/reading/ejs ernglassp bs.h ml 4/6 1/16/2014 Wri ings of Dr. Ernes J. S ernglass
h p:// .radia ion.org/reading/ejs ernglassp bs.h ml 5/6 1/16/2014 Wri ings of Dr. Ernes J. S ernglass
h p:// .radia ion.org/reading/ejs ernglassp bs.h ml 6/6 Security Meltdown (sidebar)
Competitors To Nuclear: Private investors have flatly rejected Eat My Dust nuclear power but enthusiastically bought its main supply-side competitors— In a market economy, private investors are the ultimate arbiter of decentralized cogeneration what energy technologies can compete and yield reliable profits, and renewables. so to understand nuclear power’s prospects, just follow the money. Private investors have flatly rejected nuclear power but enthusiasti- cally bought its main supply-side competitors—decentralized cogeneration and renewables. Worldwide, by the end of 2004, these supposedly inadequate alternatives (see graph, p.1) had more installed capacity than nuclear, produced 92% as much electricity, and were growing 5.9 times faster and accelerating, while nuclear was fading. The world’s nuclear plant vendors have never made money, and their few billion dollars’ dwindling annual revenue hardly qualifies them any more as a serious global business. In contrast, the renewable power industry earns ~$23 billion a year by adding ~12 GW of capacity every year: in 2004, 8 GW of wind, 3 GW of geother- mal/small hydro/biomass/wastes, and 1 GW of photovoltaics (69% of nuclear’s 2004 new construction starts, which PVs should surpass this year). PV and windpower markets, respectively doubling about every two and three years, are expected to make renewable power a $35-billion business within eight years. And distributed fossil- fueled cogeneration of heat and power added a further 15 GW in 2004; it does release carbon, but ~30% less than the separate boilers and power plants it replaces, or up to ~80% less with fuel-switching. Windpower’s 50+ gigawatts of global capacity, half of U.S. nuclear power capacity, paused in 2004 due to Congressional wrangling, but is expected to triple in the next four years, mainly in Europe, which aims to get 22% of its electricity from renewables by 2010. One-fifth of Denmark’s power now comes from wind; German and Spanish windpower are each adding as much capacity each year (2 GW) as the global nuclear industry is annually adding on average during 2000–10. No country has had or expects economic or technical obstacles to further major wind expansion. The International Energy Agency forecast in 2003 that in 2010, wind could add nine times as much capacity as nuclear added in 2004, or 84 times its planned 2010 addition. Eight years hence, just wind plus industry-forecast PVs could surpass installed global nuclear capacity. The market increasingly resembles a 1995 Shell scenario with half of global energy, and virtually all growth, coming from renewables by mid-century—about what it would take, with conservative efficiency gains, to stabilize atmospheric carbon. Whenever nuclear power’s competitors (even just on the supply side) were allowed to compete fairly, they’ve far outpaced central stations. Just in 1982–85, California utilities acquired and or were firmly offered enough cost-effective savings and decentralized supplies to meet all demand with no central fossil-fueled or nuclear plants. (Alas, before the cheaper alternatives could displace all those plants—and thus avert the 2000 power crisis—state regulators, spooked by success, halted the bidding.) Today’s nonnuclear technologies are far better and cheaper. They’re batting 1.000 in the more competitive and transparent processes that have swept most market economies’ electricity sectors and are emerging even in China and Russia. A few Stalinist economies like North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Belarus still offer ideal conditions for nuclear sales, but they won’t order much, and you wouldn’t want to live there. No wonder the world’s universities have dissolved or reorganized nearly all of their departments of nuclear engi- neering, and none still attracts top students—another portent that the business will continue to fall, as Nobel physicist Hannes Alfvén warned, “into ever less competent hands,” buying ever less solution to any unresolved problem than in the days of the pioneers. Their intentions were worthy, their efforts immense, but their hopes of abundant and affordable nuclear energy failed in the marketplace. —Amory B. Lovins
26 RMISolutions Summer 2005 1/16/2014 Ne -B ild N clea I Dead: Mo ning a - Fo be
h p:// .fo be .com/ i e /jeffmcmahon/2013/11/10/ne -b ild-n clea -i -dead-mo ning a /p in / 1/2 1/16/2014 Ne -B ild N clea I Dead: Mo ning a - Fo be
h p:// .fo be .com/ i e /jeffmcmahon/2013/11/10/ne -b ild-n clea -i -dead-mo ning a /p in / 2/2
A ICLE : OL IC
PRE IO AR ICLE NE AR ICLE Los Angeles Wind Finishes 2011 Department of Big, Sort Of Water...
Buffett s MidAmerican Energy Holding Forms Renewables Unit
Th a e f e e ab e e e g , a be , a M dA e ca VP.
from WikiCommons Herman K. Trabish January 26, 2012
MidAmerican Energy Holding Company, the Midwestern utility subsidiary of Warren Buffett s Berkshire Hathaway, announced today it will form a branch dedicated exclusively to the development of renewable energy.
The renewables platform will, unlike four of MidAmerican s five other highly regulated platforms (two utilities and two gas pipelines), offer MidAmerican the opportunity it has only had in its CalEnergy geothermal and cogeneration platform -- namely, to invest outside the strictures of regulatory obligations and with regard solely for its shareholders. MidAmerican Renewables LLC will have four subunits. MidAmerican Solar will encompass such recent MidAmerican investments as the 550-megawatt AC Topa solar power plant in California and the 290-megawatt AC Agua Caliente project in Ari ona. MidAmerican Wind will incorporate the 3,360-plus megawatts of wind the company owns, including new investments like the nearly 600 megawatts of Midwestern wind the utility has purchased since 2010.
MidAmerican Geothermal will incorporate the company s existing holdings under its CalEnergy brand. The new venture will also include MidAmerican Hydro.
The most exciting part of this, explained MidAmerican Vice President for federal policy Jonathan Weisgall, is the unregulated nature of the undertaking. A utility has to meet the dictates of federal, state and local regulators and a gas pipeline builder is governed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). MidAmerican Renewables will be free to invest shareholders money as it sees fit.
DON' MI AN G M IN IGH ! Sign up for the GTM newsletter and get our articles delivered to you.
Subscribed!
See full subscribtion options Privacy Policy Don't show this message
Don't like email? Follow us on social media instead! Despite hostile publicity about renewables arising from loan guarantees and other federal support efforts, the Buffett people believe investing in the sector is a financially smart move.
We look forward to expanding our wind, geothermal, solar and hydro portfolio, said MidAmerican Energy chairman, president and CEO Greg Abel. We believe the need for renewable energy will continue to grow.
Like other well-capitali ed, high-profile investors such as Google and Ted Turner, the Buffett company believes this increased emphasis on renewables in its portfolio is a solid business decision that will pay off over time.
This is a vote for renewable energy, Weisgall told GTM in discussing why Warren Buffett, perhaps the nation s premier investment maven, is for this move. It is not a bet.
Weisgall said there is no specific budget or capitali ation for the renewables entity but pointed to MidAmerican Energy s steadily increasing renewables buys in recent years as an indication of the new branch s financial scope. In addition to $6.1 billion invested in wind, largely since 2008, the company reportedly put some $3 billion into the two late-2011 solar power plant investments.
Federal policy and tax credits that help keep renewables on a level playing field with more mature electricity sources figure into MidAmerican s strategy, according to Weisgall. While in an unregulated market one hundred percent of the benefits from investments that earn tax credits and tax benefits such as accelerated depreciation go directly to MidAmerican s customers, the new unit created to operate in unregulated markets will give MidAmerican the opportunity to assume the role of developer and take advantage of the incentives. But MidAmerican is not gambling on these incentives being in place.
While wind s vital production tax credit (PTC) expires on the last day of 2012, the solar investment tax credit (ITC) will remain in place through 2016 and geothermal s tax credit extends to the end of 2013. The benefits these tax credits offer to MidAmerican are part of the company s attraction to solar and geothermal.
As for wind, all of MidAmerican s most recent wind buys, including the 81-megawatt Bishop Hill II project in Illinois, will be in the ground by the end of 2012, Weisgall pointed out, making them eligible for the current PTC. He and others in the renewables industries still hold out hope that a PTC extension and a restoration of the accelerated depreciation to 100 percent from its recent cut to 50 percent will be included in the tax extenders package due to come before Congress at the end of February.
But we cannot count on a tax credit, and we will work with the facts as they are, Weisgall said. Wind may remain a viable investment for MidAmerican stakeholders because of its increasingly competitive leveli ed cost of electricity. Or, Weisgall admitted, wind may not continue to be part of the new renewables unit s portfolio. In keeping with the Berkshire Hathaway commitment to frugality on behalf of its stockholders, officers at MidAmerican Energy will assume supervision of the new renewables units, Weisgall said. Only one new hire will be brought on.
AG : accelerated depreciation, agua caliente project, ari ona, berkshire hathaway, bishop hill ii, calenergy, california, capitali ation, cogeneration, congress, customers, electricity sources, federal energy regulatory commission, federal policy, federal regulators Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies 1
Executive Summary
onspicuously absent from industry press SUBSIDIES OFTEN EXCEED THE VALUE OF releases and briefing memos touting nucle- THE ENERGY PRODUCED Car power’s potential as a solution to global This report catalogues in one place and for the warming is any mention of the industry’s long and first time the full range of subsidies that benefit expensive history of taxpayer subsidies and exces- the nuclear power sector. The findings are strik- sive charges to utility ratepayers. These subsidies ing: since its inception more than 50 years ago, the not only enabled the nation’s existing reactors to nuclear power industry has benefited—and con- be built in the first place, but have also supported tinues to benefit—from a vast array of preferential their operation for decades. government subsidies. Indeed, as Figure ES-1 (p. 2) The industry and its allies are now pressuring shows, subsidies to the nuclear fuel cycle have all levels of government for large new subsidies often exceeded the value of the power produced. to support the construction and operation of a This means that buying power on the open market new generation of reactors and fuel-cycle facili- and giving it away for free would have been less ties. The substantial political support the industry costly than subsidizing the construction and opera- has attracted thus far rests largely on an uncritical tion of nuclear power plants. Subsidies to new acceptance of the industry’s economic claims and reactors are on a similar path. an incomplete understanding of the subsidies that Throughout its history, the industry has argued made—and continue to make—the existing nucle- that subsidies were only temporary, a short-term ar fleet possible. stimulus so the industry could work through early Such blind acceptance is an unwarranted, technical hurdles that prevented economical reac- expensive leap of faith that could set back more tor operation. A 1954 advertisement from General cost-effective efforts to combat climate change. A Electric stated that, “In five years—certainly within fair comparison of the available options for reduc- ten,” civilian reactors would be “privately financed, ing heat-trapping carbon emissions while generat- built without government subsidy.” That day never ing electricity requires consideration not only of arrived and, despite industry claims to the con- the private costs of building plants and their asso- trary, remains as elusive as ever. ciated infrastructure but also of the public subsi- The most important subsidies to the industry dies given to the industry. Moreover, nuclear power do not involve cash payments. Rather, they shift brings with it important economic, waste disposal, construction-cost and operating risks from investors safety, and security risks unique among low-carbon to taxpayers and ratepayers, burdening taxpayers energy sources. Shifting these risks and their associ- with an array of risks ranging from cost overruns ated costs onto the public is the major goal of the and defaults to accidents and nuclear waste man- new subsidies sought by the industry (just as it was agement. This approach, which has remained in the past), and by not incorporating these costs remarkably consistent throughout the industry’s into its estimates, the industry presents a skewed history, distorts market choices that would other- economic picture of nuclear power’s value com- wise favor less risky investments. Although it may pared with other low-carbon power sources. not involve direct cash payments, such favored 2 Union of Concerned Scientists
Figure ES-1. Nuclear Subsidies Compared to EIA Power Prices
12
11 Projected 2010–2024 10 Actual 2009 Historical 1960–2009 9 8 7 6 5 ¢/kwh 4 3 2 1 0 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High
All Ownership Types IOUPOU IOU POU
LegacyOngoing Subsidies to New Reactors Subsidies to Existing Reactors
Note: Legacy subsidies are compared to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) average 1960–2009 industrial power price (5.4 ¢/kWh). Ongoing subsidies are compared to EIA 2009 actual power prices for comparable busbar plant generation costs (5.9 ¢/kWh). Subsidies to new reactors are compared to EIA 2009 reference-case power prices for comparable busbar plant generation costs (5.7 ¢/kWh).
treatment is nevertheless a subsidy, with a pro- plants—investments that would never be tolerated found effect on the bottom line for the industry if the actual risks were properly accounted for and and taxpayers alike. allocated. Reactor owners, therefore, have never been While the purpose of this report is to quantify economically responsible for the full costs and the extent of past and existing subsidies, we are risks of their operations. Instead, the public faces not blind to the context: the industry is calling for the prospect of severe losses in the event of any even more support from Congress. Though the number of potential adverse scenarios, while pri- value of these new subsidies is not quantified in vate investors reap the rewards if nuclear plants are this report, it is clear that they would only further economically successful. For all practical purposes, increase the taxpayers’ tab for nuclear power while nuclear power’s economic gains are privatized, shifting even more of the risks onto the public. while its risks are socialized. Recent experiences in the housing and finan- LOW-COST CLAIMS FOR EXISTING REACTORS cial markets amply demonstrate the folly of IGNORE HISTORICAL SUBSIDIES arrangements that separate investor risk from The nuclear industry is only able to portray itself reward. Indeed, massive new subsidies to nuclear as a low-cost power supplier today because of past power could encourage utilities to make similarly government subsidies and write-offs. First, the speculative, expensive investments in nuclear industry received massive subsidies at its inception, Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies 3
reducing both the capital costs it needed to recover capital subsidies to investor-owned utilities (IOUs) from ratepayers (the “legacy” subsidies that under- that have declined as the aging, installed capacity wrote reactor construction through the 1980s) and base is fully written off. its operating costs (through ongoing subsidies to Our low-end estimate for subsidies to exist- inputs, waste management, and accident risks). ing reactors (in this case, investor-owned facilities) Second, the industry wrote down tens of billions is 0.7 ¢/kWh, a figure that may seem relatively of dollars in capital costs after its first generation small at only 13 percent of the value of the power of reactors experienced large cost overruns, cancel- produced. However, it represents more than 35 lations, and plant abandonments, further reduc- percent of the nuclear production costs (operation ing the industry’s capital-recovery requirements. and maintenance costs plus fuel costs, without Finally, when industry restructuring revealed that capital recovery) often cited by the industry’s main nuclear power costs were still too high to be com- trade association as a core indicator of nuclear petitive, so-called stranded costs were shifted to power’s competitiveness; it also represents nearly utility ratepayers, allowing the reactors to continue 80 percent of the production-cost advantage of operating. nuclear relative to coal. With ongoing subsidies to These legacy subsidies are estimated to exceed POUs nearly double those to IOUs, the impact on seven cents per kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh)—an competitive viability is proportionally higher for amount equal to about 140 percent of the aver- publicly owned plants. age wholesale price of power from 1960 to 2008, making the subsidies more valuable than the SUBSIDIES TO NEW REACTORS REPEAT power produced by nuclear plants over that period. PAST PATTERNS Without these subsidies, the industry would have Legacy and ongoing subsidies to existing reac- faced a very different market reality—one in which tors may be important factors in keeping facilities many reactors would never have been built, and operating, but they are not sufficient to attract new utilities that did build reactors would have been investment in nuclear infrastructure. Thus an array forced to charge consumers even higher rates. of new subsidies was rolled out during the past decade, targeting not only reactors but also other ONGOING SUBSIDIES CONTRIBUTE TO NUCLEAR fuel-cycle facilities. Despite the profoundly poor POWER’S PERCEIVED COST ADVANTAGE investment experience with taxpayer subsidies to In addition to legacy subsidies, the industry con- nuclear plants over the past 50 years, the objectives tinues to benefit from subsidies that offset the costs of these new subsidies are precisely the same as the of uranium, insurance and liability, plant security, earlier subsidies: to reduce the private cost of capital cooling water, waste disposal, and plant decommis- for new nuclear reactors and to shift the long-term, sioning. The value of these subsidies is harder to often multi-generational risks of the nuclear fuel pin down with specificity, with estimates ranging cycle away from investors. And once again, these from a low of 13 percent of the value of the power subsidies to new reactors—whether publicly or pri- produced to a high of 98 percent. The breadth of vately owned—could end up exceeding the value of this range largely reflects three main factors: uncer- the power produced (4.2 to 11.4 ¢/kWh, or 70 to tainty over the dollar value of accident liability 200 percent of the projected value of the power). caps; the value to publicly owned utilities (POUs) It should be noted that certain subsidies to of ongoing subsidies such as tax breaks and low new reactors are currently capped at a specific return-on-investment requirements; and generous dollar amount, limited to a specific number of 4 Union of Concerned Scientists
Methodology: How We Estimated Nuclear Subsidies
Identifying and valuing subsidies to the nuclear fuel Attribute of production cycle for this report involved a broad review of dozens The following subcategories were modeled on the of historical studies and program assessments, industry structure commonly used internationally (as by statements and presentations, and government docu- the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and ments. The result is an in-depth and comprehensive Development): evaluation that groups nuclear subsidies by type of plant Factors of production—subsidies intended to ownership (public or private), time frame of support offset the cost of capital, labor, and land (whether the subsidy is ongoing or has expired), and the specific attribute of nuclear power production the sub- Intermediate inputs—subsidies that alter the sidy is intended to support. economics of key inputs such as uranium, enrichment services, and cooling water Plant ownership Output-linked support—subsidies commensu- Subsidies available to investor-owned and publicly owned rate with the quantity of power produced utilities are not identical, so were tracked separately. Security and risk management—subsidies that Time frame of support address the unique and substantial safety risks The data were organized into: inherent in nuclear power
Legacy subsidies, which were critical in helping Decommissioning and waste management— nuclear power gain a solid foothold in the subsidies that offset the environmental or plant- U.S. energy sector but no longer significantly closure costs unique to nuclear power affect pricing To enable appropriate comparisons with other energy Ongoing subsidies to existing reactors, options, the results are presented in terms of levelized which continue to affect the cost of electricity cents per kilowatt-hour and as a share of the wholesale produced by the 104 U.S. nuclear reactors value of the power produced. Inclusion of industry and operating today historical data sources for some component estimates Subsidies to new reactors, which are generally means that some of the levelization inputs were not provided in addition to the ongoing subsidies transparent. Where appropriate, a range of estimates available to existing reactors was used to reflect variation in the available data or plausible assumptions. A further set of subsidies proposed for the nuclear sector but not presently in U.S. statutes is discussed qualitatively but not quantified.
reactors, or available only in specific states or local- subsidies to even more reactors and extend the ities. Therefore, although all the subsidies may not period of eligibility during which these subsidies be available to each new reactor, the values shown would be available. in Figure ES-1 are reasonably representative of the subsidies that will be available to the first new KEY SUBSIDY FINDINGS plants to be built. Furthermore, it is far from clear Government subsidies have been directed to every whether existing caps will be binding. Recent leg- part of the nuclear fuel cycle. The most significant islative initiatives would expand eligibility for these forms of support have had four main goals: reducing Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies 5 the cost of capital, labor, and land (i.e., factors of land costs have provided lesser (though still production), masking the true costs of producing relevant) support. nuclear energy (“intermediate inputs”), shifting Legacy subsidies that reduced the costs of security and accident risks to the public, and shift- these inputs were high, estimated at 7.2 ¢/kWh. ing long-term operating risks (decommissioning and Ongoing subsidies to existing reactors are much waste management) to the public. A new category lower but still significant, ranging from 0.06 to of subsidy, “output-linked support,” is directed at 1.94 ¢/kWh depending on ownership structure. reducing the price of power produced. Table ES-1 For new reactors, accelerated depreciation has shows the estimated value of these subsidies to exist- been supplemented with a variety of other capital ing and new reactors. The subsequent sections dis- subsidies to bring plant costs down by shifting a cuss each type of subsidy in more detail. large portion of the capital risk from investors to taxpayers. The total value of subsidies available to A. Reducing the Cost of Capital, Labor, new reactors in this category is significant for both and Land (Factors of Production) POUs and IOUs, ranging from 3.51 to 6.58 ¢/ Nuclear power is a capital-intensive industry with kWh. These include: long and often uncertain build times that exacer- Federal loan guarantees. Authorized under Title bate both the cost of financing during construc- 17 of the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 2005, tion and the market risks of misjudging demand. federal loan guarantees are the largest construc- Historically, investment tax credits, accelerated tion subsidy for new, investor-owned reactors, depreciation, and other capital subsidies have been effectively shifting the costs and risks of financ- the dominant type of government support for the ing and building a nuclear plant from inves- industry, while subsidies associated with labor and tors to taxpayers. The industry’s own estimates,
Table ES-1. Subsidies to Existing and New Reactors
Subsidies to Existing Reactors (¢/kWh) Subsidies to New Legacy Ongoing Reactors (¢/kWh)
All Ownership IOU POU IOU POU Subsidy Type Types
Factors of production 7.20 0.06 0.96–1.94 3.51–6.58 3.73–5.22
Intermediate inputs 0.10–0.24 0.29–0.51 0.16–0.18 0.21–0.42 0.21–0.42
Output-linked support 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05–1.45 0.00
Security and risk management 0.21–0.22 0.10–2.50 0.10–2.50 0.10–2.50 0.10–2.50
Decommissioning and waste management No data available 0.29–1.09 0.31–1.15 0.13–0.48 0.16–0.54
Total 7.50–7.66 0.74–4.16 1.53–5.77 5.01–11.42 4.20–8.68
84%–190% (high) 70%–145% (high) Share of power price 139%–142% 13%–70% 26%–98% 88%–200% 74%–152% (reference) (reference)
Note: A range of subsidy values is used where there was a variance in available subsidy estimates. To determine the subsidy’s share of the market value of the power produced, legacy subsidies are compared to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) average 1960–2009 industrial power price (5.4 ¢/kWh). Ongoing subsidies are compared to EIA 2009 power prices for comparable busbar plant generation costs (5.9 ¢/kWh). Subsidies to new reactors are compared to EIA 2009 high- and reference-case power prices for comparable busbar plant generation costs (6.0 and 5.7 ¢/kWh, respectively); using the low case would have resulted in even higher numbers. 6 Union of Concerned Scientists
which we have used despite large subsequent governments, which provide a variety of plant- increases in expected plant costs, place the value specific subsidies that vary by project. of this program between 2.5 and 3.7 ¢/kWh. Total loan guarantees are currently limited to B. Masking the True Costs of Producing $22.5 billion for new plants and enrichment Nuclear Energy (Intermediate Inputs) facilities, but the industry has been lobbying for A variety of subsidies masks the costs of the inputs much higher levels. used to produce nuclear power. Uranium fuel Loan guarantees not only allow firms to costs, for example, are not a major element in obtain lower-cost debt, but enable them to use nuclear economics, but subsidies to mining and much more of it—up to 80 percent of the proj- enrichment operations contribute to the percep- ect’s cost. For a single 1,600-megawatt (MW) tion of nuclear power as a low-cost energy source. reactor, the loan guarantee alone would generate In addition, the under-pricing of water used subsidies of $495 million per year, or roughly in bulk by nuclear reactors has significant cost $15 billion over the 30-year life of the guarantee. implications. The value of such legacy subsidies Accelerated depreciation. Allowing utilities to to existing reactors is estimated between 0.10 and depreciate new reactors over 15 years instead of 0.24 ¢/kWh, and the value of ongoing subsidies their typical asset life (between 40 and 60 years) is estimated between 0.16 and 0.51 ¢/kWh. The will provide the typical plant with a tax break value of such subsidies to new reactors is estimated of approximately $40 million to $80 million between 0.21 and 0.42 ¢/kWh. Subsidized inputs per year at current construction cost estimates. include: Rising plant costs, longer service lives, and Fuel. The industry continues to receive a special lower capacity factors would all increase the depletion allowance for uranium mining equal value of current accelerated depreciation rules to 22 percent of the ore’s market value, and to IOUs. This subsidy is not available to POUs its deductions are allowed to exceed the gross because they pay no taxes. investment in a given mine. In addition, ura- Subsidized borrowing costs to POUs. The nium mining on public lands is governed by most significant subsidy available to new pub- the antiquated Mining Law of 1872, which licly owned reactors is the reduced cost of bor- allows valuable ore to be taken with no royalties rowing made possible by municipal bonds and paid to taxpayers. Although no relevant data new Build America Bonds, which could be have been collected on the approximately worth more than 3 ¢/kWh. 4,000 mines from which uranium has been Construction work in progress. Many states extracted in the past, environmental remedia- allow utilities to charge ratepayers for construc- tion costs at some U.S. uranium milling sites tion work in progress (CWIP) by adding a sur- actually exceeded the market value of the ore charge to customers’ bills. This shifts financing extracted. and construction risks (including the risk of Uranium enrichment. Uranium enrichment, cost escalations and/or plants being abandoned which turns mined ore into reactor fuel, has during construction) from investors to custom- benefited from substantial legacy subsidies. New ers. CWIP benefits both POUs and IOUs and plants that add enrichment capacity will receive is estimated to be worth between 0.41 and subsidies as well, in the form of federal loan 0.97 ¢/kWh for new reactors. guarantees. Congress has already authorized Property-tax abatements. Support for new $2 billion in loan guarantees for a new U.S. plants is also available through state and local enrichment facility, and the Department of Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies 7
Energy has allocated an additional $2 billion for by selling or transferring them to other project this purpose. While we could not estimate the investors that do pay taxes. per-kilowatt-hour cost of this subsidy because it depends on how much enrichment capacity is D. Shifting Security and Accident Risks to built, the $4 billion represents a significant new the Public (Security and Risk Management) subsidy to this stage of the fuel cycle. Subsidies that shift long-term risks to the public Cooling water. Under-priced cooling water have been in place for many years. The Price- is an often-ignored subsidy to nuclear power, Anderson Act, which caps the nuclear industry’s which is the most water-intensive large-scale liability for third-party damage to people and thermal energy technology in use. Even when property, has been a central subsidy to the industry the water is returned to its source, the large for more than half a century. withdrawals alter stream flow and thermal pat- Plant security concerns have increased sig- terns, causing environmental damage. Available nificantly since 9/11, and proliferation risks will data suggest that reactor owners pay little or increase in proportion to any expansion of the nothing for the water consumed, and are often civilian nuclear sector (both in the United States given priority access to water resources—includ- and abroad). The complexity and lack of data ing exemption from drought restrictions that in these areas made it impossible to quantify the affect other users. While we provide a low esti- magnitude of security subsidies for this analysis. mate of water subsidies (between $600 million But it is clear that as the magnitude of the threat and $700 million per year for existing reactors), increases, taxpayers will be forced to bear a greater more work is needed to accurately quantify this share of the risk. Subsidies that shift these risks are subsidy—particularly as water resources become associated with: more constrained in a warming climate. The Price-Anderson Act. This law requires utilities to carry a pre-set amount of insurance C. Reducing the Price of Power Produced for off-site damages caused by a nuclear plant (Output-Linked Support) accident, and to contribute to an additional Until recently, subsidies linked to plant output were pool of funds meant to cover a pre-set portion not a factor for nuclear power. That changed with of the damages. However, the law limits total the passage of EPACT in 2005, which granted new industry liability to a level much lower than reactors an important subsidy in the form of: would be needed in a variety of plausible acci- Production tax credits (PTCs). A PTC will be dent scenarios. This constitutes a subsidy when granted for each kilowatt-hour generated dur- compared with other energy sources that are ing a new reactor’s first eight years of operation; required to carry full private liability insurance, at present, this credit is available only to the and benefits both existing and new reactors. first plants to be built, up to a combined total Only a few analysts have attempted to deter- capacity of six gigawatts. While EPACT pro- mine the value of this subsidy over its existence, vides a nominal PTC of 1.8 ¢/kWh, payments with widely divergent results: between 0.1 and are time-limited. Over the full life of the plant, 2.5 ¢/kWh. More work is therefore needed to the PTC is worth between 1.05 and 1.45 ¢/ determine how the liability cap affects plant kWh. Under current law, PTCs are not avail- economics, risk-control decisions, and risks to able to POUs (since POUs do not pay taxes), the adjacent population. but there have been legislative efforts to enable Plant security. Reactor operators must provide POUs to capture the value of the tax credits security against terrorist attacks or other threats 8 Union of Concerned Scientists
of a certain magnitude, referred to as the “design basis threat.” For threats of a greater magnitude The Industry’s Shopping List: New Subsidies (a larger number of attackers, for example), the Under Consideration government assumes all financial responsibility, The following nuclear subsidies, as proposed in which constitutes another type of subsidy. It is the American Power Act (APA) and the American difficult to quantify the value of this taxpayer- Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA), would not provided benefit because competing forms necessarily be available to every new reactor, of energy do not carry similar risks. But it is but their collective value to the industry would important that plant security costs be reflected be significant: in the cost of power delivered to consumers, rather than supported by taxpayers in general. nuclear power through much larger loans, Proliferation. The link between an expanded letters of credit, loan guarantees, and civilian nuclear sector and proliferation of other credit instruments than is currently nuclear weapons or weapons technology is fairly possible widely accepted. It is also consistently ignored when assessing plant costs—much as investors available to nuclear reactors through in coal plants ignored the cost of carbon con- the Department of Energy, from trols until recently. Though quantifying prolif- $18.5 billion to $54 billion eration costs may be difficult, assuming they are zero is clearly wrong. These ancillary impacts new reactors from 15 years to five should be fully assessed and integrated into the cost of nuclear power going forward. private investors or federal grants in lieu of tax payments to publicly owned and E. Shifting Long-Term Operating cooperative utilities Risks to the Public (Decommissioning and Waste Management) credit from 6,000 to 8,000 megawatts, and The nuclear fuel cycle is unique in the types of permitting tax-exempt entities to allocate long-term liabilities it creates. Reactors and fuel- their available credits to private partners cycle facilities have significant end-of-life liabilities associated with the proper closure, decommission- for public-private partnerships, which ing, and decontamination of facilities, as well as would allow POUs to issue tax-free, low- cost bonds for nuclear plants developed the safe management of nuclear waste over thou- jointly with private interests sands of years. The industry has little operational experience with such large and complex undertak- coverage from $2 billion to $6 billion (up ings, greatly increasing the likelihood of dramatic to $500 million per reactor), which would cost overruns. In total, the subsidies that shift these further shield plant developers from costs long-term operating risks to the public amount to associated with regulatory or legal delays between 0.29 and 1.09 ¢/kWh for existing reactors and between 0.13 and 0.54 ¢/kWh for new reac- tors. The specific subsidies that do the shifting are expected to cost nearly $100 billion over its associated with: projected operating life, 80 percent of which is Nuclear waste management. The federal attributed to the power sector. A congressionally Nuclear Waste Repository for spent fuel is mandated fee on nuclear power consumers, Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies 9
earmarked for the repository, has collected importance, however, is the fact that subsidies roughly $31 billion in waste-disposal fees to nuclear power also carry significant opportu- through 2009. There is no mechanism other nity costs for reducing global warming emissions than investment returns on collections to fully because reactors are so expensive and require such fund the repository once reactors close. long lead times to construct. In other words, The repository confers a variety of subsidies massive subsidies designed to help underwrite the to the nuclear sector. First, despite its complexity large-scale expansion of the nuclear industry will and sizable investment, the repository is struc- delay or diminish investments in less expensive tured to operate on a break-even basis at best, abatement options. with no required return on investment. Second, Other energy technologies would be able to utilities do not have to pay any fee to secure compete with nuclear power far more effectively repository capacity; in fact, they are allowed to if the government focused on creating an energy- defer payments for waste generated prior to the neutral playing field rather than picking technology repository program’s creation, at interest rates winners and losers. The policy choice to invest in well below their cost of capital. Third, the sig- nuclear also carries with it a risk unique to the nucle- nificant risk of delays and cost overruns will be ar fuel cycle: greatly exacerbating already thorny borne by taxpayers rather than the program’s proliferation challenges as reactors and ancillary beneficiaries. Delays in the repository’s open- fuel-cycle facilities expand throughout the world. ing have already triggered a rash of lawsuits and As this report amply demonstrates, taxpayer sub- taxpayer-funded waste storage at reactor sites, at sidies to nuclear power have provided an indispens- a cost between $12 billion and $50 billion. able foundation for the industry’s existence, growth, Plant decommissioning. While funds are col- and survival. But instead of reworking its business lected during plant operation for decommission- model to more effectively manage and internalize its ing once the plant’s life span has ended, reduced operational and construction risks, the industry is tax rates on nuclear decommissioning trust funds pinning its hopes on a new wave of taxpayer subsi- provide an annual subsidy to existing reactors of dies to prop up a new generation of reactors. between $450 million and $1.1 billion per year. Future choices about U.S. energy policy should Meanwhile, concerns persist about whether the be made with a full understanding of the hidden funds accrued will be sufficient to cover the costs; taxpayer costs now embedded in nuclear power. To in 2009, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission accomplish this goal, we offer the following recom- (NRC) notified the operators of roughly one- mendations: quarter of the nation’s reactor fleet about the potential for insufficient funding. We did not Reduce, not expand, subsidies to the nuclear quantify the cost of this potential shortfall. power industry. Federal involvement in energy markets should instead focus on encouraging CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY firms involved in nuclear power—some of the largest corporations in the world—to create RECOMMENDATIONS new models for internal risk pooling and to Historical subsidies to nuclear power have already develop advanced power contracts that enable resulted in hundreds of billions of dollars in costs high-risk projects to move forward without paid by taxpayers and ratepayers. With escalating additional taxpayer risk. plant costs and more competitive power markets, Award subsidies to low-carbon energy sources the cost of repeating these failed policies will on the basis of a competitive bidding process likely be even higher this time around. Of equal across all competing technologies. Subsidies 10 Union of Concerned Scientists
should be awarded to those approaches able funding and performance should be collected to achieve emissions reductions at the lowest and publicized by the NRC. possible cost per unit of abatement—not on the Ensure that publicly owned utilities adopt basis of congressional earmarks for specific types appropriate risk assessment and asset man- of energy. agement procedures. POUs and relevant state Modernize liability systems for nuclear power. regulatory agencies should review their internal Liability systems should reflect current options procedures to be sure the financial and delivery in risk syndication, more robust requirements risks of nuclear investments are appropriately for the private sector, and more extensive testing compared with other options. of the current rules for excess risk concentration Roll back state construction-work-in-progress and counterparty risks. These steps are necessary allowances and protect ratepayers against to ensure coverage will actually be available when cost overruns by establishing clear limits on needed, and to send more accurate risk-related customer exposure. States should also establish price signals to investors and power consumers. a refund mechanism for instances in which Establish proper regulation and fee structures plant construction is cancelled after it has for uranium mining. Policy reforms are needed already begun. to eliminate outdated tax subsidies, adopt mar- Nuclear power should not be eligible for inclu- ket-level royalties for uranium mines on public sion in a renewable portfolio standard. Nuclear lands, and establish more appropriate bonding power is an established, mature technology regimes for land reclamation. with a long history of government support. Adopt a more market-oriented approach to Furthermore, nuclear plants are unique in their financing the Nuclear Waste Repository. The potential to cause catastrophic damage (due to government should require sizeable waste man- accidents, sabotage, or terrorism); to produce agement deposits by the industry, a repository very long-lived radioactive wastes; and to exac- fee structure that earns a return on investment erbate nuclear proliferation. at least comparable to other large utility proj- Evaluate proliferation and terrorism as an ects, and more equitable sharing of financial externality of nuclear power. The costs of risks if additional delays occur. preventing nuclear proliferation and terrorism Incorporate water pricing to allocate lim- should be recognized as negative externalities ited resources among competing demands, of civilian nuclear power, thoroughly evaluated, and integrate associated damages from large and integrated into economic assessments—just withdrawals. The government should estab- as global warming emissions are increasingly lish appropriate benchmarks for setting water identified as a cost in the economics of coal- prices that will be paid by utilities and other fired electricity. consumers, using a strategy that incorporates Credit support for the nuclear fuel cycle via ecosystem damage as well as consumption- export credit agencies should explicitly inte- based charges. grate proliferation risks and require project- Repeal decommissioning tax breaks and ensure based credit screening. Such support should greater transparency of nuclear decommission- require higher interest rates than those extended ing trusts (NDTs). Eliminating existing tax to other, less risky power projects, and include breaks for NDTs would put nuclear power on conditions on fuel-cycle investments to ensure a similar footing with other energy sources. the lending does not contribute to proliferation More detailed and timely information on NDT risks in the recipient country. 1/16/2014 THE PEBBLE BED MODULAR REACTOR (PBMR) - NIRS
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/pbmrfactsheet.htm 1/3 1/16/2014 THE PEBBLE BED MODULAR REACTOR (PBMR) - NIRS
Like Y and 8,503 he like hi .
T ee F
NIRS 4h @nirsnet Nuclear Newsreel, Januar 16, 2014 wp.me/p2vFGd-O
Pi h 8h http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/pbmrfactsheet.htm 2/3 ENERGY
A PATH TO SUSTAINABLE ENERGY BY 2030 Wind, water and n December leaders from around the world for at least a decade, analyzing various pieces of will meet in Copenhagen to try to agree on the challenge. Most recently, a 2009 Stanford solar technologies Icutting back greenhouse gas emissions for University study ranked energy systems accord- can provide decades to come. The most effective step to im- ing to their impacts on global warming, pollu- 100 percent of the plement that goal would be a massive shift away tion, water supply, land use, wildlife and other from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy concerns. The very best options were wind, so- ) dam world’s energy, sources. If leaders can have con! dence that such lar, geothermal, tidal and hydroelectric pow- ( eliminating all a transformation is possible, they might commit er—all of which are driven by wind, water or to an historic agreement. We think they can. sunlight (referred to as WWS). Nuclear power, fossil fuels. A year ago former vice president Al Gore coal with carbon capture, and ethanol were all Photos Aurora HERE’S HOW threw down a gauntlet: to repower America poorer options, as were oil and natural gas. The with 100 percent carbon-free electricity within study also found that battery-electric vehicles
10 years. As the two of us started to evaluate the and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles recharged by HEINSOHNBILL ); feasibility of such a change, we took on an even WWS options would largely eliminate pollution wind farm wind larger challenge: to determine how 100 percent from the transportation sector. ( of the world’s energy, for all purposes, could be Our plan calls for millions of wind turbines, supplied by wind, water and solar resources, by water machines and solar installations. The Aurora Photos Aurora By Mark Z. Jacobson as early as 2030. Our plan is presented here. numbers are large , but the scale is not an insur-
and Mark A. Delucchi Scientists have been building to this moment mountable hurdle; society has achieved massive LEE JOHN
58 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN November 2009 transformations before. During World War II, tion, operation and decommissioning. For ex- the U.S. retooled automobile factories to pro- ample, when burned in vehicles, even the most KEY CONCEPTS duce 300,000 aircraft, and other countries pro- ecologically acceptable sources of ethanol create duced 486,000 more. In 1956 the U.S. began air pollution that will cause the same mortality ■ Supplies of wind and solar building the Interstate Highway System, which level as when gasoline is burned. Nuclear power energy on accessible land after 35 years extended for 47,000 miles, chang- results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions dwarf the energy con- sumed by people around ing commerce and society. than wind energy, when reactor construction the globe. Is it feasible to transform the world’s energy and uranium re" ning and transport are consid- systems? Could it be accomplished in two de- ered. Carbon capture and sequestration technol- ■ The authors’ plan calls cades? The answers depend on the technologies ogy can reduce carbon dioxide emissions from for 3.8 million large wind chosen, the availability of critical materials, and coal-" red power plants but will increase air pol- turbines, 90,000 solar plants, and numerous economic and political factors. lutants and will extend all the other deleterious geothermal, tidal and effects of coal mining, transport and processing, rooftop photovoltaic Clean Technologies Only because more coal must be burned to power the installations worldwide. Renewable energy comes from enticing sources: capture and storage steps. Similarly, we consider wind, which also produces waves; water, which only technologies that do not present signi" cant ■ The cost of generating and transmitting power includes hydroelectric, tidal and geothermal ener- waste disposal or terrorism risks. would be less than the gy (water heated by hot underground rock); and In our plan, WWS will supply electric power projected cost per sun, which includes photovoltaics and solar pow- for heating and transportation—industries that kilowatt-hour for fossil- er plants that focus sunlight to heat a ! uid that will have to revamp if the world has any hope of fuel and nuclear power. drives a turbine to generate electricity. Our plan slowing climate change. We have assumed that ■ Shortages of a few ) includes only technologies that work or are close most fossil-fuel heating (as well as ovens and specialty materials, to working today on a large scale, rather than stoves) can be replaced by electric systems and along with lack of solar panelssolar those that may exist 20 or 30 years from now. that most fossil-fuel transportation can be re- political will, loom as To ensure that our system remains clean, we placed by battery and fuel-cell vehicles. Hydro- the greatest obstacles. consider only technologies that have near-zero gen, produced by using WWS electricity to split —The Editors emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants water (electrolysis), would power fuel cells and
HO/REUTERS/CORBIS ( HO/REUTERS/CORBIS over their entire life cycle, including construc- be burned in airplanes and by industry.
www.ScientificAmerican.com SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 59 RENEWABLE POWER AVAILABLE POWER NEEDED IN READILY ACCESSIBLE LOCATIONS WORLDWIDE IN 2030 Plenty of Supply Today the maximum power consumed world- WATER 2 TW wide at any given moment is about 12.5 trillion watts (terawatts, or TW), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The agen- cy projects that in 2030 the world will require WIND 40–85 TW 16.9 TW of power as global population and liv- IF CONVENTIONAL SUPPLY 16.9 TW ing standards rise, with about 2.8 TW in the U.S. The mix of sources is similar to today’s, heavily dependent on fossil fuels. If, however, the planet were powered entirely by WWS, with no fossil-fuel or biomass combustion, an intrigu- OR ing savings would occur. Global power demand would be only 11.5 TW, and U.S. demand would be 1.8 TW. That decline occurs because, in most cases, electri" cation is a more ef" cient way to use energy. For example, only 17 to 20 percent of the energy in gasoline is used to move a vehi- cle (the rest is wasted as heat), whereas 75 to 86 IF RENEWABLE percent of the electricity delivered to an electric SUPPLY (MORE vehicle goes into motion. EFFICIENT) Even if demand did rise to 16.9 TW, WWS 11.5 TW sources could provide far more power. Detailed studies by us and others indicate that energy from the wind, worldwide, is about 1,700 TW. Solar, alone, offers 6,500 TW. Of course, wind and sun out in the open seas, over high moun- tains and across protected regions would not be available. If we subtract these and low-wind ar- eas not likely to be developed, we are still left with 40 to 85 TW for wind and 580 TW for so- lar, each far beyond future human demand. Yet currently we generate only 0.02 TW of wind power and 0.008 TW of solar. These sources hold an incredible amount of untapped potential. The other WWS technologies will help create a ! exible range of options. Although all the sources can expand greatly, for practical rea- sons, wave power can be extracted only near coastal areas. Many geothermal sources are too deep to be tapped economically. And even though hydroelectric power now exceeds all other WWS sources, most of the suitable large reservoirs are already in use.
MW – MEGAWATT = 1 MILLION WATTS GW – GIGAWATT = 1 BILLION WATTS TW – TERAWATT = 1 TRILLION WATTS SOLAR 580 TW
➥ The Editors welcome responses to this article. To comment and to see more detailed calculations, go to www.Scienti! cAmerican.com/sustainable-energy
60 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN November 2009 RENEWABLE INSTALLATIONS REQUIRED WORLDWIDE
WATER 1.1 TW (9% OF SUPPLY) 490,000 TIDAL TURBINES – 1 MW* – < 1% IN PLACE *size of unit 5,350 GEOTHERMAL PLANTS – 100 MW – 2% IN PLACE
The Plan: Power Plants Required Clearly, enough renewable energy exists. How, 900 then, would we transition to a new infrastruc- HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS – 1,300 MW – 70% IN PLACE ture to provide the world with 11.5 TW? We have chosen a mix of technologies emphasizing wind and solar, with about 9 percent of demand met by mature water-related methods. (Other 3,800,000 combinations of wind and solar could be as WIND TURBINES – 5 MW – 1% IN PLACE successful .) Wind supplies 51 percent of the demand, pro- vided by 3.8 million large wind turbines (each WIND 5.8 TW rated at " ve megawatts) worldwide. Although 720,000 that quantity may sound enormous, it is interest- (51% OF SUPPLY) WAVE CONVERTERS* – 0.75 MW – < 1% IN PLACE *wind drives waves ing to note that the world manufactures 73 mil- lion cars and light trucks every year. Another 40 percent of the power comes from photovolta- ics and concentrated solar plants, with about 30 percent of the photovoltaic output from roof- 1,700,000,000 top panels on homes and commercial buildings. ROOFTOP PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS* – 0.003 MW – < 1% IN PLACE About 89,000 photovoltaic and concentrated *sized for a modest house; a commercial roof might have dozens of systems solar power plants, averaging 300 megawatts apiece, would be needed. Our mix also includes 900 hydroelectric stations worldwide, 70 per- 49,000 cent of which are already in place. CONCENTRATED SOLAR POWER PLANTS – 300 MW – < 1% IN PLACE Only about 0.8 percent of the wind base is in- stalled today. The worldwide footprint of the 3.8 million turbines would be less than 50 square SOLAR 4.6 TW kilometers (smaller than Manhattan). When the (40% OF SUPPLY) needed spacing between them is " gured, they
40,000 ) PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER PLANTS – 300 MW – < 1% IN PLACE would occupy about 1 percent of the earth’s plug ( land, but the empty space among turbines could be used for agriculture or ranching or as open
Getty Images Getty land or ocean. The nonrooftop photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants would occupy about 0.33 percent of the planet’s land. Building such an extensive infrastructure will take time.
); NICHOLAS ); EVELEIGH But so did the current power plant network. And remember that if we stick with fossil fuels, de-
illustrations mand by 2030 will rise to 16.9 TW, requiring about 13,000 large new coal plants, which them- selves would occupy a lot more land, as would
CATALOGTREE ( CATALOGTREE the mining to supply them.
www.ScientificAmerican.com SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 61 SILVER POSSIBLE MATERIALS SHORTAGES APPLICATION: ALL SOLAR CELLS SOLUTION: REDUCE OR RECYCLE SILVER CONTENT TELLURIUM APPLICATION: THIN-FILM SOLAR CELLS SOLUTION: OPTIMIZE OTHER CELL TYPES NEODYMIUM APPLICATION: WIND TURBINE GEARBOXES SOLUTION: IMPROVE GEARLESS TURBINES
SILVER
TELLURIUM
PLATINUM APPLICATION: HYDROGEN CAR FUEL CELL NEODYMIUM SOLUTION: DESIGN FUEL CELLS FOR EASY RECYCLING INDIUM APPLICATION: THIN-FILM SOLAR CELLS SOLUTION: OPTIMIZE OTHER LITHIUM CELL TYPES APPLICATION: ELECTRIC CAR BATTERY SOLUTION: DESIGN BATTERIES FOR EASY RECYCLING PLATINUM
INDIUM
LITHIUM
The Materials Hurdle The scale of the WWS infrastructure is not a bar- ing ways to reduce the silver content could tackle
rier. But a few materials needed to build it could that hurdle. Recycling parts from old cells could ) [THE AUTHORS] be scarce or subject to price manipulation. ameliorate material dif" culties as well. Delucchi Mark Z. Jacobson is professor of Enough concrete and steel exist for the mil- Three components could pose challenges for civil and environmental engineer- lions of wind turbines, and both those commodi- building millions of electric vehicles: rare-earth ing at Stanford University and ties are fully recyclable. The most problematic metals for electric motors, lithium for lithium- director of the Atmosphere/Energy materials may be rare-earth metals such as neo- ion batteries and platinum for fuel cells. More Program there. He develops com- dymium used in turbine gearboxes. Although the than half the world’s lithium reserves lie in Bo- puter models to study the effects of energy technologies and their metals are not in short supply, the low-cost sourc- livia and Chile. That concentration, combined emissions on climate and air pollu- es are concentrated in China, so countries such with rapidly growing demand, could raise prices ( KARENDELUCCHI OF COURTESY ); tion. Mark A. Delucchi is a re- as the U.S. could be trading dependence on Mid- signi" cantly. More problematic is the claim by Jacobson search scientist at the Institute dle Eastern oil for dependence on Far Eastern Meridian International Research that not enough of Transportation Studies at the metals. Manufacturers are moving toward gear- economically recoverable lithium exists to build University of California, Davis. He focuses on energy, environ- less turbines, however, so that limitation may be- anywhere near the number of batteries needed in mental and economic analyses of come moot. a global electric-vehicle economy. Recycling advanced, sustainable transporta- Photovoltaic cells rely on amorphous or crys- could change the equation, but the economics of tion fuels, vehicles and systems. talline silicon, cadmium telluride, or copper in- recycling depend in part on whether batteries are dium selenide and sul" de. Limited supplies of made with easy recyclability in mind, an issue the ); COURTESY OF MARK Z. JACOBSON ( JACOBSON Z. MARK OF COURTESY ); tellurium and indium could reduce the prospects industry is aware of. The long-term use of plati-
for some types of thin-" lm solar cells, though num also depends on recycling; current available illustration not for all; the other types might be able to take reserves would sustain annual production of 20 up the slack. Large-scale production could be re- million fuel-cell vehicles, along with existing in-
stricted by the silver that cells require, but " nd- dustrial uses, for fewer than 100 years. ( CATALOGTREE
62 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN November 2009 AVERAGE DOWNTIME FOR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DAYS PER YEAR
COAL PLANT 12.5% (46 DAYS) WIND TURBINE 2% (7 DAYS) PHOTOVOLTAIC PLANT 2% (7 DAYS)
Smart Mix for Reliability wind at night when it is often plentiful, using so- A new infrastructure must provide energy on lar by day and turning to a reliable source such demand at least as reliably as the existing infra- as hydroelectric that can be turned on and off structure. WWS technologies generally suffer quickly to smooth out supply or meet peak de- less downtime than traditional sources. The mand. For example, interconnecting wind farms average U.S. coal plant is of! ine 12.5 percent of that are only 100 to 200 miles apart can com- the year for scheduled and unscheduled mainte- pensate for hours of zero power at any one farm nance. Modern wind turbines have a down time should the wind not be blowing there. Also help- of less than 2 percent on land and less than 5 per- ful is interconnecting geographically dispersed cent at sea. Photovoltaic systems are also at less sources so they can back up one another, install- than 2 percent. Moreover, when an individual ing smart electric meters in homes that automati- wind, solar or wave device is down, only a small cally recharge electric vehicles when demand is fraction of production is affected; when a coal, low and building facilities that store power for nuclear or natural gas plant goes of! ine, a large later use . chunk of generation is lost. Because the wind often blows during stormy The main WWS challenge is that the wind conditions when the sun does not shine and the CALIFORNIA CASE STUDY: To does not always blow and the sun does not al- sun often shines on calm days with little wind, show the power of combining ways shine in a given location. Intermittency combining wind and solar can go a long way to- resources, Graeme Hoste of Stan- ford University recently calculated problems can be mitigated by a smart balance of ward meeting demand, especially when geother- how a mix of four renewable sources, such as generating a base supply from mal provides a steady base and hydroelectric can sources, in 2020, could generate steady geothermal or tidal power, relying on be called on to " ll in the gaps. 100 percent of California’s electricity around the clock, on a typical July day. The hydroelectric CLEAN ELECTRICITY 24/7 capacity needed is already in place.
POWER (GW) 40
20
5
01234567891011NOON 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 TIME OF DAY
CATALOGTREE GEOTHERMAL WIND SOLAR HYDRO
www.ScientificAmerican.com SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 63 As Cheap as Coal The mix of WWS sources in our plan can reli- in 2007 of conventional power generation and ably supply the residential, commercial, indus- transmission was about 7¢/kWh, and it is pro- trial and transportation sectors. The logical next jected to be 8¢/kWh in 2020. Power from wind question is whether the power would be afford- turbines, for example, already costs about the able. For each technology, we calculated how same or less than it does from a new coal or nat- much it would cost a producer to generate pow- ural gas plant, and in the future wind power is er and transmit it across the grid. We included expected to be the least costly of all options. The the annualized cost of capital, land, operations, competitive cost of wind has made it the second- maintenance, energy storage to help offset inter- largest source of new electric power generation mittent supply, and transmission. Today the cost in the U.S. for the past three years, behind natu- of wind, geothermal and hydroelectric are all ral gas and ahead of coal. less than seven cents a kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh); Solar power is relatively expensive now but wave and solar are higher. But by 2020 and should be competitive as early as 2020. A care- beyond wind, wave and hydro are expected to ful analysis by Vasilis Fthenakis of Brookhaven be 4¢/kWh or less. National Laboratory indicates that within 10 For comparison, the average cost in the U.S. years, photovoltaic system costs could drop to about 10¢/kWh, including long-distance trans- COST TO GENERATE AND TRANSMIT POWER IN 2020 mission and the cost of compressed-air storage of power for use at night. The same analysis es- CENTS PER KILOWATT-HOUR, IN 2007 DOLLARS 10 timates that concentrated solar power systems with enough thermal storage to generate elec- tricity 24 hours a day in spring, summer and fall 9 could deliver electricity at 10¢/kWh or less . Transportation in a WWS world will be driv- en by batteries or fuel cells, so we should com- 8 U.S. AVERAGE FOR FOSSIL AND NUCLEAR 8 pare the economics of these electric vehicles with that of internal-combustion-engine vehicles. De- tailed analyses by one of us (Delucchi) and Tim 7 Lipman of the University of California, Berkeley, have indicated that mass-produced electric vehi- cles with advanced lithium-ion or nickel metal- 6 hydride batteries could have a full lifetime cost per mile (including battery replacements) that is comparable with that of a gasoline vehicle, when 5 gasoline sells for more than $2 a gallon. When the so-called externality costs (the monetary value of damages to human health, 4 the environment and climate) of fossil-fuel gen- eration are taken into account, WWS technolo- gies become even more cost-competitive. 3 Overall construction cost for a WWS system might be on the order of $100 trillion worldwide, over 20 years, not including transmission. But 2 this is not money handed out by governments or consumers. It is investment that is paid back through the sale of electricity and energy. And 1 again, relying on traditional sources would raise output from 12.5 to 16.9 TW, requiring thou- sands more of those plants, costing roughly $10 trillion, not to mention tens of trillions of dollars more in health, environmental and security costs. 10 D <4 The WWS plan gives the world a new, clean, ef- WAVE 4 TAIC WIN " cient energy system rather than an old, dirty, in- D SOLAR 8
ef" cient one. CATALOGTREE
HYDROELECTRIC 4 GEOTHERMAL 4–7 PHOTOVOL
64 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN CONCENTRATE November 2009 Political Will COAL MINERS and other fossil- fuel workers, unions and lobby- Our analyses strongly suggest that the costs of the U.S.—to centers of consumption, typically ists are likely to resist a trans- WWS will become competitive with traditional cities. Reducing consumer demand during peak formation to clean energy; sources. In the interim, however, certain forms usage periods also requires a smart grid that political leaders will have to of WWS power will be signi" cantly more costly gives generators and consumers much more con- champion the cause. than fossil power. Some combination of WWS trol over electricity usage hour by hour. subsidies and carbon taxes would thus be need- A large-scale wind, water and solar energy ed for a time. A feed-in tariff (FIT) program to system can reliably supply the world’s needs, sig- cover the difference between generation cost and ni" cantly bene" ting climate, air quality, water wholesale electricity prices is especially effective quality, ecology and energy security. As we have at scaling-up new technologies. Combining FITs shown, the obstacles are primarily political, not ➥ MORE TO with a so-called declining clock auction, in technical. A combination of feed-in tariffs plus E X P L O R E which the right to sell power to the grid goes to incentives for providers to reduce costs, elimina- the lowest bidders, provides continuing incen- tion of fossil subsidies and an intelligently ex- Stabilization Wedges: Solving the tive for WWS developers to lower costs. As that panded grid could be enough to ensure rapid de- Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies. happens, FITs can be phased out. FITs have been ployment. Of course, changes in the real-world S. Pacala and R. Socolow in Science, implemented in a number of European countries power and transportation industries will have to Vol. 305, pages 968–972; 2004. and a few U.S. states and have been quite suc- overcome sunk investments in existing infra- cessful in stimulating solar power in Germany. structure. But with sensible policies, nations Evaluation of Global Wind Power. Taxing fossil fuels or their use to re! ect their could set a goal of generating 25 percent of their Cristina L. Archer and Mark Z. Jacobson in Journal of Geophysical environmental damages also makes sense. But at new energy supply with WWS sources in 10 to Research—Atmospheres, Vol. 110, a minimum, existing subsidies for fossil energy, 15 years and almost 100 percent of new supply D12110; June 30, 2005. such as tax bene" ts for exploration and extrac- in 20 to 30 years . With extremely aggressive pol- tion, should be eliminated to level the playing icies, all existing fossil-fuel capacity could theo- Going Completely Renewable: " eld. Misguided promotion of alternatives that retically be retired and replaced in the same pe- Is It Possible (Let Alone Desirable)? ) B. K. Sovacool and C. Watts in
coal are less desirable than WWS power, such as farm riod, but with more modest and likely policies ( The Electricity Journal, Vol. 22, No. 4, and production subsidies for biofuels, should full replacement may take 40 to 50 years. Either pages 95–111; 2009. also be ended, because it delays deployment of way, clear leadership is needed, or else nations Getty Images Images Getty cleaner systems. For their part, legislators craft- will keep trying technologies promoted by in- Review of Solutions to Global ing policy must " nd ways to resist lobbying by dustries rather than vetted by scientists. Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security. M. Z. Jacobson in the entrenched energy industries. A decade ago it was not clear that a global Energy and Environmental Science, ); DON FARRALLDON ); Finally, each nation needs to be will- WWS system would be technically or eco- Vol. 2, pages 148–173; 2009. ing to invest in a robust, long-distance nomically feasible. Having shown that it protesters ( transmission system that can carry is, we hope global leaders can " gure out The Technical, Geographical, and large quantities of WWS power from how to make WWS power politically Economic Feasibility for Solar AP Photo AP Energy to Supply the Energy Needs remote regions where it is often great- feasible as well. They can start by com- of the U.S. V. Fthenakis, J. E. Mason est—such as the Great Plains for wind mitting to meaningful climate and re- and K. Zweibel in Energy Policy,
JEFF GENTNER GENTNER JEFF and the desert Southwest for solar in newable energy goals now. ■ Vol. 37, pages 387–399; 2009.
www.ScientificAmerican.com SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 65 1/16/2014 A L : W N c ea P e , "N Ac G d Ca Be Pe ed"
As heroic orkers and soldiers stri e to sa e stricken Japan from a ne horror--radioacti e fallo t--some tr ths kno n for 40 ears bear repeating.
An earthq ake-and-ts nami one cro ded ith 127 million people is an n- ise place for 54 reactors. The 1960s design of fi e F k shima-I reactors has the smallest safet margin and probabl can't contain 90% of melt-do ns. The U.S. has 6 identical and 17 er similar plants.
E er c rrentl operating light- ater reactor, if depri ed of po er and cooling ater, can melt do n. F k shima had 8-ho r batter reser es, b t f el has melted in three reactors. Most U.S. reactors get in tro ble after 4 ho rs. Some ha e had shorter blacko ts. M ch longer ones co ld happen.
O erheated f el risks h drogen or steam e plosions that damage eq ipment and contaminate the hole site--so cl stering man reactors together (to sa e mone ) can make fail re at one reactor cascade to the rest.
N clear po er is niq el nforgi ing: as S edish Nobel ph sicist Hannes Alf n said, "No acts of God can be permitted." Fallible people ha e created its half-cent r histor of a fe calamities, a stead stream of orr ing incidents, and man near-misses. America has been l ck so far. Had Three Mile Island's containment dome not been b ilt do ble-strength beca se it as nder an airport landing path, it ma not ha e ithstood the 1979 accident's h drogen e plosion. In 2002, Ohio's Da is-Besse reactor as l ckil ca ght j st before its massi e press re- essel lid r sted thro gh.
Reg lators ha en't resol ed these or other ke safet iss es, s ch as terrorist threats to reactors, lest the disr pt a po erf l ind str . U.S. reg lation is not clearl better than Japanese reg lation, nor more transparent: ind str -friendl r les bar the American p blic from meaningf l participation. Man Presidents' n clear boosterism also disco rages inq ir and dissent.
N clear-promoting reg lators inspire e en less confidence. The International Atomic Energ Agenc 's 2005 estimate of abo t 4,000 Chernob l deaths contrasts ith a rigoro s 2009 re ie of 5,000 mainl Sla ic-lang age scientific papers the IAEA o erlooked. It fo nd deaths approaching a million thro gh 2004, nearl 170,000 of them in North America. The total toll no e ceeds a million, pl s a half-trillion dollars' economic damage. The fallo t reached fo r continents, j st as the jet stream co ld s iftl carr F k shima fallo t.
F k shima I-4's spent f el alone, hile in the reactor, had prod ced (o er ears, not in an instant) more than a h ndred times more fission energ and hence radioacti it than both 1945 atomic bombs. If that alread -damaged f el keeps o erheating, it ma melt or b rn, releasing into the air things like cesi m-137 and stronti m-90, hich take se eral cent ries to deca a millionfold. Unit 3's f el is spiked ith pl toni m, hich takes 482,000 ears.
N clear po er is the onl energ so rce here mishap or malice can kill so man people so far a a ; the onl one hose ingredients can help make and hide n clear bombs; the onl climate sol tion that s bstit tes proliferation, accident, and high-le el radioacti e aste dangers. Indeed, n clear plants are so slo and costl to b ild that the red ce and retard climate protection.
Here's ho . Each dollar spent on a ne reactor b s abo t 2-10 times less carbon sa ings, 20-40 times slo er, than spending that dollar on the cheaper, faster, safer sol tions that make n clear po er nnecessar and neconomic: efficient se of electricit , making heat and po er together in factories or b ildings ("cogeneration"), and rene able energ . The last t o made 18% of the orld's 2009 electricit , n clear 13%, re ersing their 2000 shares--and made o er 90% of the orld's additional electricit in 2008.
Those smarter choices are s eeping the global energ market. Half the orld's ne generating capacit in 2008 and 2009 as rene able. In 2010, rene ables e cept big h dro dams on $151 billion of pri ate in estment and added o er 50 billion atts (70% the total capacit of all 23 F k shima-st le U.S. reactors) hile n clear got ero pri ate in estment and kept losing capacit . S pposedl nreliable indpo er made 43-52% of fo r German states' total 2010 electricit . Non-n clear Denmark, 21% ind- po ered, plans to get entirel off fossil f els. Ha ai'i plans 70% rene ables b 2025.
In contrast, of the 66 n clear nits orld ide officiall listed as " nder constr ction" at the end of 2010, 12 had been so listed for o er 20 ears, 45 had no official start p date, half ere late, all 66 ere in centrall planned po er s stems--50 of those in j st fo r (China, India, R ssia, So th Korea)--and ero ere free-market p rchases. Since 2007, n clear gro th has added less ann al
:// . .c /a - / c ea - e - a-_b_837643. ? e = &c _ e = a e 1/2 1/16/2014 A L : W N c ea P e , "N Ac G d Ca Be Pe ed" o tp t than j st the costliest rene able--solar po er --and ill probabl ne er catch p. While inherentl safe rene able competitors are alloping both n clear and coal plants in the marketplace and keep getting dramaticall cheaper, n clear costs keep soaring, and ith greater safet preca tions o ld go e en higher. Tok o Electric Co., j st reco ering from $10-20 billion in 2007 earthq ake costs at its other big n clear comple , no faces an e en more r ino s F k shima bill.
Since 2005, ne U.S. reactors (if an ) ha e been 100+% s bsidi ed-- et the co ldn't raise a cent of pri ate capital, beca se the ha e no b siness case. The cost 2-3 times as m ch as ne indpo er, and b the time o co ld b ild a reactor, it co ldn't e en beat solar po er. Competiti e rene ables, cogeneration, and efficient se can displace all U.S. coal po er more than 23 times o er--lea ing ample room to replace n clear po er's half-as-big-as-coal contrib tion too--b t e need to do it j st once. Yet the n clear ind str demands e er more la ish s bsidies, and its lobb ists hold all other energ efforts hostage for tens of billions in added ransom, ith no limit.
Japan, for its si e, is e en richer than America in benign, ample, b t long-neglected energ choices. Perhaps this traged ill call Japan to global leadership into a post-n clear orld. And before America s ffers its o n F k shima, it too sho ld ask, not hether nfinanceabl costl ne reactors are safe, b t h b ild an more, and h keep r nning nsafe ones. China has s spended reactor appro als. German j st sh t do n the oldest 41% of its n clear capacit for st d . America's n clear lobb sa s it can't happen here, so pile on la ish ne s bsidies.
A d rable m th claims Three Mile Island halted U.S. n clear orders. Act all the stopped o er a ear before--dead of an inc rable attack of market forces. No do bt hen n clear po er's collapse in the global marketplace, alread ears old, is finall ackno ledged, it ill be blamed on F k shima. While e pra for the best in Japan toda , let s hope its people's sacrifice ill help speed the orld to a safer, more competiti e energ f t re.
P c A L c b a a . H ' 31 b a 450 a , a c B P a , V , O a , N a , S , Za , a M c P , MacA a A a F , 11 a c a , a H , L b , R L , Na a D , a W T c A a . H ' a a U.S. a c c , a S aca c a , a a O , a a a a , c S a . H RMI a ' a 2011 b R F c b b - a a a b a U.S. c a b 2050 , c a , c a c a a c c .
Cop right Rock Mo ntain Instit te 2011
:// . .c /a - / c ea - e - a-_b_837643. ? e = &c _ e = a e 2/2 The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013
By
Mycle Schneider Independent Consultant, Paris, France Project Coordinator and Lead Author
Antony Froggatt Independent Consultant, London, U.K. Lead Author
With
Komei Hosokawa Professor for Environmental and Social Research, Kyoto Seika University, Japan Contributing Author
Steve Thomas Professor for Energy Policy, Greenwich University, U.K. Contributing Author
Yukio Yamaguchi Co-director of the Citizen's Nuclear Information Center (CNIC), Tokyo, Japan Contributing Author
Julie Hazemann Director of EnerWebWatch, Paris, France Documentary Research, Modeling and Graphic Design
Foreword by Peter A. Bradford
Paris, London, July 2013
A Mycle Schneider Consulting Project
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt et al. World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013-V 1 !
The nuclear share in the world’s power generation declined steadily from a historic peak of 17 percent in 1993 to about 10 percent in 2012. Nuclear power’s share of global commercial primary energy production plunged to 4.5 percent, a level last seen in 1984.9 Only one country, the Czech Republic, reached its record nuclear contribution to the electricity mix in 2012. Age. In the absence of major new-build programs, the unit-weighted average age of the world nuclear reactor fleet continues to increase and in mid-2013 stands at 28 years. Over 190 units (45 percent of total) have operated for 30 years of which 44 have run for 40 years or more. Construction. Fourteen countries are currently building nuclear power plants, one more than a year ago as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) started construction at Barrakah. The UAE is the first new country in 27 years to have started building a commercial nuclear power plant. As of July 2013, 66 reactors are under construction (7 more than in July 2012) with a total capacity of 63 GW. The average construction time of the units under construction, as of the end of 2012, is 8 years. However: • Nine reactors have been listed as “under construction” for more than 20 years and four additional reactors have been listed for 10 years or more. • Forty-five projects do not have an official planned start-up date on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) database. • At least 23 have encountered construction delays, most of them multi-year. For the remaining 43 reactor units, either construction began within the past five years or they have not yet reached projected start-up dates, making it difficult or impossible to assess whether they are on schedule or not. • Two-thirds (44) of the units under construction are located in three countries: China, India and Russia. The average construction time of the 34 units that started up in the world between 2003 and July 2013 was 9.4 years.
Reactor Status and Nuclear Programs • Startups and Shutdowns. Only three reactors started up in 2012, while six were shut down10 and in 2013 up to 1 July, only one started up, while four shutdown decisions—all in the U.S.—were taken in the first half of 2013.11 Three of those four units faced costly repairs, but one, Kewaunee, Wisconsin, was running well and had received a license renewal just two years ago to operate up to a total of 60 years; it simply became uneconomic to run. As of 1 July 2013, there were only two reactors operating in Japan and how many others will receive permission to restart and over what timeframe remains highly uncertain. • Newcomer Program Delays. Engagement in nuclear programs has been delayed by most of the potential newcomer countries, including Bangladesh, Belarus, Jordan, Lithuania, Poland, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 9 According to BP, “Statistical Review of World Energy”, June 2013. 10 Shutdown is defined as definitively taken off the grid. The shutdown date is the last day when the reactor generated electricity. 11 The operator decided in June 2013 to shut down the two San Onofre units in California. However, they have not generated electricity for over a year. So in the WNISR database the units have been withdrawn for the year 2012 rather than 2013.
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt et al. World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013 7 ARTICLES: MARKETS & POLICY
PREVIOUS ARTICLE NEXT ARTICLE E I N O D F M ... ...
A I I E 4 M
The ind str ill soon install one solar s stem e er min te and a half.
L A 19, 2013
A A . D , 30 , 4,080 M D ' B M , 48,000 CO2 .
A , . . (P ) . I , A 2016.
' 2006, 80 . K , G M , : S c : S a Ka , GTM R a c
H ' . :
S c : S a Ka , GTM R a c
I B M , . A G M , - . . 2 1/2 . A 2016, P .
. . 1 -- 2016 2010.
F a A ca a , c c . . M I GTM R a c a SEIA.
TAGS: , , , A ICLE : LA JEC
PREVIOUS ARTICLE NEXT ARTICLE SolarCit Aims for 1 How Real Is the Million... South African PV...
Chart: 2/3rds of Global Solar PV Has Been Installed in the Last 2.5 Years
And capaci ill nea l do ble in he ne 2.5 ea .
Stephen Lace August 13, 2013
Recurrent Energ
If ou want to understand wh people so often compare deplo ment trends in solar photovoltaics (PV) to Moore's law in computing, consider this statistic: two-thirds of all solar PV capacit in place worldwide has been installed since Januar 2011.
Let's put that into perspective. It took nearl four decades to install 50 gigawatts of PV capacit worldwide. But in the last 2 1/2 ears, the industr jumped from 50 gigawatts of PV capacit to just over 100 gigawatts. At the same time, global module prices have fallen 62 percent since Januar 2011.
Even more ama ingl , the solar industr is on track to install another 100 gigawatts worldwide b 2015 -- nearl doubling solar capacit in the ne t 2 1/2 ears. Those statistics and the chart below, courtes of GTM Research Senior Anal st MJ Shiao, illustrate the e ponential growth in the global PV market.
S ce: GTM Re ea ch
And as Shiao's second chart below shows, the U.S. distributed solar market is on prett much the same growth trajector . More than two-thirds of America's distributed PV (ever thing e cept for utilit -scale projects) has been installed since Januar 2011. And b 2015, the countr 's distributed PV market is e pected to jump b more than 200 percent. Cha : GTM Re ea ch/SEIA U.S. S la Ma ke In igh
There are a few ke takeawa s from these figures.
First, utilities still dismissing solar as inconsequential or "cute" ma soon be in for a rude awakening. According to the S la Ma ke In igh report from GTM Research and SEIA, the national average for residential s stem prices fell another 18 percent last ear; non-residential prices fell 13.3 percent.
The falling cost and price of installation is starting to open up new markets without incentives. As Sha le Kann, vice president of GTM Research, pointed out recentl , roughl 3,000 residential solar s stems were installed in California without the use of an state incentives in the first quarter of this ear.
"This is emblematic of a sea change in the solar industr , and even more importantl , in the energ industr ," wrote Kann.
But this rapid increase in installations won't create challenges for just utilities -- it will also create challenges for the solar industr itself. Since the solar market is still at the beginning of a steep growth curve, it's hard to sa whether the business models and technologies we know toda are going to be successful in the future. This will likel mean more bankruptcies and more consolidation. It will also test the reliabilit of products operating in the field.
Because two-thirds of PV capacit in the field toda was onl installed in the last couple of ears, a majorit of the products are still ver new. Solar is a multi-decade investment, and there is uncertaint around how new hardware will perform over the long term, e plained Shiao.
"We're reall at the beginning stages of understanding PV in terms of products in the field, viable business models, and effects on the grid, especiall when ou consider that PV is being sold man times as a twent - ear asset. Now is the time to look deeper into issues surrounding product reliabilit , market sustainabilit and O&M business models."
The boom in distributed solar is underwa . And we've onl just begun to understand the implications.
F m e n d c e f mance, check he PV m d le eliabili c eca d f m GTM Re ea ch and PV E l i n Lab . And f m e n U.S. la end , ead he U.S. Solar Market Insight e .
TAGS: distributed solar, gtm research, reliabilit , solar industr , solar installations, utilities 1/16/2014 Nearl half of ne U.S. po er capacit in 2012 as rene able mostl ind Grist
http://grist.org/ne s/nearl -half-of-ne - -s-po er-capacit -in-2012- as-rene able-mostl - ind/ 1/3 1/16/2014 Nearl half of ne U.S. po er capacit in 2012 as rene able mostl ind Grist
http://grist.org/ne s/nearl -half-of-ne - -s-po er-capacit -in-2012- as-rene able-mostl - ind/ 2/3 1/16/2014 Nearl half of ne U.S. po er capacit in 2012 as rene able mostl ind Grist
http://grist.org/ne s/nearl -half-of-ne - -s-po er-capacit -in-2012- as-rene able-mostl - ind/ 3/3
Office of Energy Projects Energy Infrastructure Update For September 2013
Electric Generation Highlights Basin Electric Power Cooperative’s 45 MW natural gas-fired Pioneer Generating Station Phase 1 in Williams County, ND is online. Phase 2, with 90 MW, is expected to come online in January 2014. GreenWhey Energy’s 3.2 MW biomass fueled project in Polk County, WI is online. GreenWhey’s two anaerobic digesters convert wastewater from the area cheese processing plants into electricity which is sold under long-term contract to Xcel Energy. Three solar plants with a total of 5.6 MW capacity in NC are online: 1) 2 MW Central Farm 2 in Robeson County; 2) 1.6 MW Innovative Solar 1 & 2 in Buncombe County; and 3) FLS Energy Inc.’s 2 MW Taylor Solar Farm in Robeson County. The power generated from these facilities is sold to Progress Energy Carolinas under long-term contracts.
New Generation In-Service (New Build and Expansion) January – September January – September September 2013 2013 Cumulative 2012 Cumulative No. of Installed Capacity No. of Installed Capacity No. of Installed Capacity Primary Fuel Type Units (MW) Units (MW) Units (MW) Coal 0 0 2 1,543 3 2,359 Natural Gas 1 45 51 5,854 91 5,079 Nuclear 0 0 0 0 1 0 Oil 0 0 7 27 38 73 Water 0 0 11 116 10 8 Wind 1 2 9 961 87 5,043 Biomass 3 5 57 192 102 413
Geothermal Steam 0 0 1 14 9 148 Solar 5 7 146 1,935 228 1,091 Waste Heat 0 0 2 76 1 3 Other 2 0 3 0 4 0 Total 12 58 289 10,717 574 14,217 Source: Data derived from Ventyx Global LLC, Velocity Suite.
Total Installed Operating Generating Capacity
Installed Capacity (GW) % of Total Capacity Coal 336.38 28.94% Natural Gas 487.96 41.98% Nuclear 106.78 9.19% Oil 47.15 4.06% Water 96.66 8.32%
Wind 60.15 5.18%
Biomass 15.20 1.31% Geothermal Steam 3.78 0.33% Solar 6.27 0.54% Waste Heat 1.14 0.10% Other 0.80 0.07% Total 1,162.27 100.00% Source: Data derived from Ventyx Global LLC, Velocity Suite.
Page 3 of 4
May 6, 2013 - 2:26pm Share on emailShare on facebook
Renewed energy and enhanced coordination are on the horizon for an international collaborative that is advancing new, safer nuclear energy systems.
Deputy Assistant Secretary Kelly
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Reactor Technologies
Nuclear power reactors currently under construction worldwide boast modern safety and operational enhancements that were designed by the global nuclear energy industry and enhanced through research and development (R&D) by the U.S. Department of Energy and its international counterparts. Today, experts around the world are collaborating to further advance nuclear technology to meet future energy needs.
Developing the next generation of nuclear reactor technology is an ambitious goal, even for countries with large-scale nuclear energy research programs. That's why the U.S. has been working with international partners to coordinate efforts, resources and schedules to achieve success.
The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) was established to address key technical issues associated with designing, building and operating next-generation nuclear energy systems. The Generation-IV designs will use fuel more efficiently, reduce waste production, be economically competitive and meet stringent standards of safety and proliferation resistance. Some of these revolutionary designs could be demonstrated within the next decade, with commercial deployment beginning in the 2030s.
GIF includes 12 member countries and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), evolving from nine original member countries who signed the GIF charter in July 2001. These nine members, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States, were later joined by Switzerland, Euratom, the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation to form the current 13 member forum. For more than a decade, GIF has led international collaborative efforts to develop next-generation nuclear energy systems that can help meet the world's future energy needs. The advanced systems are designed to meet four overarching goals: sustainability, safety and reliability, economic competitiveness, and proliferation resistance/physical protection. More specifically, our goals for these Generation IV reactor systems are to:
provide sustainable energy generation that meets clean energy objectives, promotes long-term availability of systems and utilizes fuel more effectively minimize nuclear waste and reduce long term stewardship burden excel in safety and reliability have a very low likelihood and degree of reactor core damage in the case of an accident greatly reduce the need for offsite emergency response have a life cycle cost advantage over other energy sources have a level of financial risk comparable to other energy projects be a very unattractive route for diversion or theft of weapon-usable materials, and provide increased physical protection against acts of terrorism
With these goals in mind, some 100 experts evaluated 130 reactor concepts before GIF selected six reactor technologies for further research and development. Five of the designs recycle fissionable material and produce less nuclear waste. Four designs co-generate heat that could be used for industrial processes such as seawater desalination or plastics production. Today, China has begun construction of a prototype Generation-IV reactor, and both France and Russia are developing advanced sodium fast reactor designs for near-team demonstration. Prototype lead fast reactors are expected to be built in Russia and Europe in the 2020 timeframe.
HTR-PM First Concrete Deployment on December 9, 2012 Photo Courtesy of Dr. ZHANG, Zuoyi, Director/Professor, Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology (INET), Tsinghua University, Beijing, China As the current GIF chair, I believe the organization is poised for a period of enhanced collaboration, communication, and student involvement. During a meeting next week in Beijing, China, I expect the GIF governing body to approve a new strategic plan — the first in a decade — and begin its implementation.
The plan outlines how GIF will enhance R&D collaboration and optimize coordination with other international research and regulatory entities among GIF members. The plan also includes an updated technology roadmap, which assesses the status and future plans of each next-generation nuclear system under development by GIF members.
Watch for updates from next week's meeting and learn more about GIF at the Generation IV International Forum website.
Share on emailShare on facebook
U.S. - China Energy Cooperation China and Russia to Join the Generation IV International Forum
Generation IV International Forum Updates Technology Roadmap and Builds Future Collaboration
Careers & Internships Initiatives Contact Us
ENERGY.GOV 1000 Independence Ave. SW Washington DC 20585 202-586-5000 ABOUT THIS SITE o Web Policies o Privacy o No Fear Act o Information Quality o Open Gov o Accessibility ENERGY DEPARTMENT o Budget & Performance o Directives, Delegations & Requirements o FOIA o Inspector General o Privacy Program o Small Business FEDERAL GOVERNMENT o The White House o USA.gov
1/16/2014 Al Gore sa s use of geo-engineering to head off climate disaster is insane Environment theguardian.com
Sear ch Belief in an instant planet- ide quick-fi , such as blocking sunlight ith sulphur, is delusional, US activist declares
Fo llo @s u ji Fo llo @g u ar d ian
http:// .theguardian.com/ orld/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/15/geo-al-gore-engineering-climate-disaster-instant-solutio/print 1/5 1/16/2014 Al Gore sa s use of geo-engineering to head off climate disaster is insane Environment theguardian.com
http:// .theguardian.com/ orld/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/15/geo-al-gore-engineering-climate-disaster-instant-solutio/print 2/5 1/16/2014 Al Gore sa s use of geo-engineering to head off climate disaster is insane Environment theguardian.com
The most important environment stories each eek including data, opinion pieces and guides.
Sign up for the Green light email
The 10 most subversive Julie M erson: ho Archduke Fran Ferdinand The saints go marching out omen artists in histor mindfulness based descendant: don't blame us as the face of Islam cognitive therap changed for first orld ar hardens in Pakistan m life
Ever Wonder Ho Cruise Deborah Norville: The Most Obscene National This Oakland Compan Is Lines Fill Unsold Cabins? "Devastated" B Enquirer Covers from the On The Verge of This ma surprise ou... Rheumatoid Arthritis 1960s Revolutioni ing The Solar (Lifest le Journal) (Lifescript.com) (National Enquirer) Industr (Outdoor Adventure)
http:// .theguardian.com/ orld/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/15/geo-al-gore-engineering-climate-disaster-instant-solutio/print 3/5 1/16/2014 Green Car Congress: H undai to offer Tucson Fuel Cell vehicle to LA-area retail customers in spring 2014 Honda, To ota sho latest FCV concepts tar
Fo llo H undai Tucson Fuel Cell. Click to T eets enlarge. Mike Millikin 6h @mmillikin European December car sales jump 13 , boosted b discounting. Automotive Ne s Europe. europe.autone s.com/article/201401 Mike Millikin 6h @mmillikin 'Lo carbon leakage' begins as EU prepares to junk efficienc goal. EurActiv.com goo.gl/a L tI
Mike Millikin 17h @mmillikin TransCanada ill look at rail if e stone L rejected. Fuel Fi goo.gl/W0ngI
Mike Millikin 20h @mmillikin Batter incident grounds T eet to @mmillikin
http:// .greencarcongress.com/2013/11/20131121-fcvs.html 1/11 1/16/2014 Green Car Congress: H undai to offer Tucson Fuel Cell vehicle to LA-area retail customers in spring 2014 Honda, To ota sho latest FCV concepts tar
Click to enlarge.
http:// .greencarcongress.com/2013/11/20131121-fcvs.html 2/11 1/16/2014 Green Car Congress: H undai to offer Tucson Fuel Cell vehicle to LA-area retail customers in spring 2014 Honda, To ota sho latest FCV concepts tar The Honda FCEV Concept. Click to enlarge.
To ota FCV Concept Click to enlarge.
http:// .greencarcongress.com/2013/11/20131121-fcvs.html 3/11 1/16/2014 Green Car Congress: H undai to offer Tucson Fuel Cell vehicle to LA-area retail customers in spring 2014 Honda, To ota sho latest FCV concepts tar
http:// .greencarcongress.com/2013/11/20131121-fcvs.html 4/11 The Business Case for Fuel Cells 2012
I. Introduction
Fuel Cells for Corporate Sustainability 2012 Fuel Cell Customers Repeat customers in blue U.S. companies are finding that going green helps earn more green; more reliable and efficient sources of power help boost Adobe Systems + 0.4 MW productivity as well as profits. As businesses turn to cleaner and Americold + 0.6 MW more efficient technologies to help reduce their greenhouse gas Apple + 5 MW emissions, many are turning to fuel cells to supplement their AT&T + 9.6 MW energy portfolios, including large, multi-megawatt (MW) orders in CBS Studios + 4.8 MW both ongoing and new end user markets. Coca-Cola +0.5 MW;
+56 forklifts Several recent studies reinforce the idea that sustainability can be eBay + 6 MW good for the bottom line. A 2012 survey by research firm JMB Realty + 0.4 MW Verdantix indicates that many CFOs see sustainability as a key driver of financial performance, a similar result found in a Lowe’s + 161 forklifts 2011 MIT study, Sustainability & Innovation Global Executive Mercedes-Benz +72 forklifts Study and Research Project.1 News Corp. + 0.4 MW Owens Corning + 0.4 MW Fuel cells are reliable, efficient, quiet, and significantly cut carbon Procter & Gamble + 340 forklifts emissions. In the age of distributed generation (power generated Roger’s Gardens + 0.015 MW onsite), fuel cells also offer facilities a clean break from an electric San Jose Sharks + 0.4 MW grid plagued by violent weather disruptions and growing issues Sysco + 524 forklifts with cyber security. In addition, fuel cells are compatible with Walmart + 3.6 MW other energy technologies – whether renewable such as solar, wind or biogas, or traditional, such as natural gas or batteries. + 32.1 MW Fuel cells complement and improve energy technology + 1,131 forklifts performance and, in turn, help companies meet their sustainability goals while boosting their bottom line.
A few of this year’s big name fuel cell customers include Fortune 500 companies Apple, eBay, Coca-Cola, and Walmart, all of which trust fuel cells to provide reliable power to data centers, stores, and facilities. Some are purchasing huge, multi-megawatt (MW) systems, including three of the largest non-utility purchases of stationary fuel cells in the world by AT&T, Apple and eBay – 17 MW, 4.8 MW and 6 MW respectively. Others are replacing fleets of battery forklifts with fuel cells. Sysco, the food distributor, has more than 700 fuel cell-powered forklifts operating at seven facilities, with more on order. Walmart now has more than 500 fuel cell forklifts operating in three warehouses, including a freezer facility.
In our 2010 and 2011 Business Case reports, Fuel Cells 2000 profiled a total of 62 companies using fuel cells. The 2011 report also included second looks at 10 repeat customers from the previous report. This new 2012 report narrows the focus to a handful of companies either incorporating fuel cells with other technologies in order to better achieve their sustainability goals, and/or becoming repeat customers and installing large-scale systems at their facilities. The companies profiled are collectively saving millions of dollars in electricity costs while reducing carbon dioxide emissions by hundreds of thousands of metric tons per year.
Fuel Cells 2000 | Page 1
The Business Case for Fuel Cells 2012
II. New Markets, New Customers
The fuel cell industry is attracting customers from all areas of commerce – computing/software, television/media, real estate development, food/beverage processing, grocery stores, hotels, warehouse/distribution and much more. Many companies in these sectors are turning into repeat customers, coming back to purchase additional systems for their facilities.
Data Centers Top Fuel Cell Power Customers
Fuel cells are extremely reliable and generate high 1 17.1 MW quality power, making them a valuable technology at 28 sites for data centers, hospitals, or other facilities where power outages are not an option. Banks, call 10.4 MW centers, and prisons share this critical power need 2 at 26 sites as well. 6.5 MW Two of the biggest names in computing, Apple and 3 Microsoft, are each making a major investment in at 2 sites fuel cells for their respective data centers. Apple is 5.3 MW in the process of installing a 4.8 MW Bloom Energy 4 Apple fuel cell system alongside 20 MW of solar panels at at 2 sites its new data center in Maiden, North Carolina. This historic installation is explained in greater detail in 5 5.0 MW the following pages. at 7 sites
Microsoft recently announced a first-of-its-kind fuel 3.1 MW cell installation at its Cheyenne, Wyoming, data 6 at 4 sites facility that will come online in spring 2013. The 300-kW FuelCell Energy system will operate directly 3.0 MW on biogas from a nearby wastewater treatment 7 plant. Microsoft plans to scale up this system upon at 5 sites successful demonstration. Meanwhile, AT&T has become the largest fuel cell customer in the U.S., 8 2.4 MW announcing an additional 9.6 MW to accompany at 2 sites the 7.5 MW from last year. This adds up to 17.1 MW of fuel cells helping to power 28 AT&T sites in 9 2.3 MW California and Connecticut, including data centers. at 5 sites
Media 10 1.6 MW at 2 sites Also reliant on continuous power - especially in the age of 24/7 cable news coverage - many media outlets are turning to fuel cells to power studios and communications networks. CBS Studios recently purchased 2.4 MW of UTC Power fuel cell systems for two California production locations housing 26 sound stages between them. News Corporation, based in New York City, installed a 400-kW fuel cell to generate electricity for the TV studio, with the waste heat being captured for hot water.
Fuel Cells 2000 | Page 2
The Business Case for Fuel Cells 2012
Time Warner Cable installed an Altergy Systems’ 30-kW fuel cell system to provide backup electrical power to its Palm Springs, California, distribution hub that receives television, high-speed data, and phone signals from its primary distribution center in Palm Desert, and then distributes them to residential and business customers throughout Palm Springs.
Materials Handling Top Fuel Cell Lift Truck Customers
The U.S. is now the undisputed world leader in fuel 1 700+ forklifts cell lift truck deployments, and is also the leading at 7 sites manufacturer of them. There are now fuel cell lift trucks deployed at facilities in 19 states, with more 509 forklifts on the way. In the year since our last report, there 2 at 3 sites have been many new deployments and orders of fuel cell-powered lift trucks, including several from 340 forklifts previous customers such as Coca-Cola and BMW. 3 New customers include Procter & Gamble, Kroger, at 4 sites and Lowe’s. Several U.S. based fuel cell developers are cornering the materials handling market, and 4 234 forklifts lift truck manufacturers and integrators, such as at 1 site Crown, Raymond and Yale, are boosting sales by offering fuel cells in their catalogues. 5 230+ forklifts at 1 site The benefits to businesses deploying fuel cell lift trucks are many. Longer run times, no voltage sag 200+ forklifts and faster refills mean more productivity from lift 6 at 1 site truck operators. No battery storage and changing room or dedicated employees manning it means 161 forklifts more warehouse space for product, with some 7 companies reporting recouping 6-7% of space upon at 1 site switching to fuel cells. Zero-emission fuel cells are helping workers breathe easier around the 8 161 forklifts warehouse as well. at 1 site
Real Estate/Hospitality 9 140+ forklifts at 1 site Fuel cells have been checking into hotels for years now, with the first installation in the early 1990s. 10 96 forklifts Since then, there have been fuel cells installed in at 2 sites hotels and casinos around the country, and increasingly, in other real estate developments such as high rise office buildings, mixed-use apartment buildings and office parks. In February 2012, JMB Realty’s Constellation Place (formerly MGM Tower) became the first Los Angeles skyscraper to be powered by fuel cells.
Fuel cells are inherently efficient, and when the heat is captured and used, that efficiency total more than 90%. This captured heat can be used in many capacities in the hospitality setting – hot water, Fuel Cells 2000 | Page 3
The Business Case for Fuel Cells 2012
space heating, even for the pool or sauna. For some hotels, preserving historical buildings while upgrading energy systems can be a tricky situation. Fuel cells can be sited indoors or out, on roofs or in basements, and have a much smaller footprint than other technologies, so many developers are now designing them into the décor, including most recently at the historic Lafayette Hotel in San Diego.
III. Distributed Generation
The U.S. electric grid is 99.97% reliable, yet that 0.03% of unreliability is both troublesome and costly. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports that grid power outages and power quality issues cost American businesses on average over $100 billion each year.2
The threat of a cyber attack against critical infrastructure has emerged as yet another challenge to grid security in recent years, potentially impacting the information technology (IT) systems and networks used within the electric utility and delivery infrastructure, such as power lines, electricity control systems, and customer meters. A July 2012 AVERAGE COST FOR ONE HOUR OF Government Accountability (GAO) report3 examined the POWER INTERRUPTION growth of these threats to the electric power industry and Cellular communications $41,000 states that this is one of the nation’s high-risk vulnerabilities. Telephone ticket sales $72,000 Airline reservation system $90,000 Semiconductor manufacturer $2,000,000 Fuel cell systems, whether grid-tied or grid-independent, Credit card operation $2,580,000 provide premium power without voltage sags, surges, and Brokerage operation $6,480,000 frequency variations that can impact computer systems. In Source: U.S. Department of Energy [The Smart Grid: addition to power, byproduct heat from a fuel cell can be An Introduction.] used at the end-user facility for space heating, water heating, and chilling. When supplementing grid power, fuel cells reduce peak demand and lower energy bills. In some areas, fuel cell power is even cheaper than grid electricity. Power purchase agreements, offered by many of the major fuel cell companies, can lock in the cost of fuel cell power for a specified period, generating cost savings over the term of the contract (more detail on page 10). On top of everything, fuel cells produce little to no polluting emissions – making fuel cells the cleanest energy generation technology available today.
IV. Partners in Power
Fuel cell systems can be scaled up to multi-megawatts and are capable of taking entire corporate campuses off the electric grid, but they do not have to work alone. In fact, many facilities now use fuel cells alongside other energy technologies to meet their power needs. Companies with critical power needs, ambitious sustainability goals, or both, have paired fuel cells with other renewable sources of energy such as solar, biogas, and wind to achieve serious emissions reductions and hardened grid independence. In other cases, fuel cells enhance conventional technologies and fuels such as batteries and natural gas, boosting the efficiency and extending the life, helping companies get more from less. The following section highlights the versatility of fuel cell technology and how it pairs with familiar energy sources and technology. Fuel Cells 2000 | Page 4
1/16/2014 A e U.S. C ea E e Ge e a F d a H e Ab ad - NYT e .c
:// . e .c /c e/2010/06/24/24c a e e-a e - -c ea -e e - e e a -f d -a- -60575. ? a e a ed= 1/3 1/16/2014 A e U.S. C ea E e Ge e a F d a H e Ab ad - NYT e .c
:// . e .c /c e/2010/06/24/24c a e e-a e - -c ea -e e - e e a -f d -a- -60575. ? a e a ed= 2/3 1/16/2014 A e U.S. C ea E e Ge e a F d a H e Ab ad - NYT e .c
Copyright 2010
Privacy Policy Terms of Service Search Corrections First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map
:// . e .c /c e/2010/06/24/24c a e e-a e - -c ea -e e - e e a -f d -a- -60575. ? a e a ed= 3/3 1/23/2014 I e i S a d T, S e 2003, Ne Life f N c ea P e
EN I ONMEN & ENE G
For more information regarding reproduction of this article, please click here.
ALVIN M. WEINBERG
Most of hat I rote in "Engineering in an Age of An iet " and "Energ Polic in an Age of Uncertaint " I still belie e: Inherentl safe nuclear energ technologies ill continue to e ol e; total U.S. energ output ill rise more slo l than it has hitherto; and incrementalism ill, at least in the short run, dominate our energ suppl . Ho e er, m perspecti e has changed in some a s as the result of an emerging de elopment in electricit generation: the remarkable e tension of the lifetimes of man generating facilities, particularl nuclear reactors. If this trend continues, it could significantl alter the long-term prospect for nuclear energ .
This trend to ard nuclear reactor "immortalit " has become apparent in the past 20 ears, and it has become clear that the projected lifetime of a reactor is far longer than e had estimated hen e licensed these reactors for 30 to 40 ears. Some 14 U.S. reactors ha e been relicensed, 16 others ha e applied for relicensing, and 18 more applications are e pected b 2004. According to former Nuclear Regulator Commission Chairman Richard Meser e, essentiall all 103 U.S. po er reactors ill be relicensed for at least another 20 ears.
If nuclear reactors recei e normal maintenance, the ill "ne er" ear out, and this ill profoundl affect the economic performance of the reactors. Time annihilates capital costs. The economic Achilles' heel of nuclear energ has been its high capital cost. In this respect, nuclear energ resembles rene able energ sources such as ind turbines, h droelectric facilities, and h :// .i e . g/19.4/ ei be g.h photo oltaic cells, hich ha e high capital 1/4 1/23/2014 I e i S a d T, S e 2003, Ne Life f N c ea P e photo oltaic cells, hich ha e high capital costs but lo operating e penses. If a reactor lasts be ond its amorti ation time, the burden of debt falls drasticall . Indeed, according to one estimate, full amorti ed nuclear reactors ith total electricit production costs (operation and maintenance, fuel, and capital costs) belo 2 cents per kilo att hour are possible.
Electricit that ine pensi e ould make it economicall feasible to po er operations such as sea ater desalini ation, fulfilling a dream that as common in the earl da s of nuclear po er. President Eisenho er proposed building nuclear-po ered industrial comple es in the West Bank as a solution to the Middle East's ater problem, and Sen. Ho ard Baker promulgated a "sense of the U.S. Senate" resolution authori ing a stud of such comple es as part of a settlement of the Israel- Palestinian conflict.
If po er reactors are irtuall immortal, e ha e in principle achie ed nuclear electricit "too cheap to meter." But there is a major catch. The er ine pensi e electricit does not kick in until the reactor is full amorti ed, hich means that the generation that pa s for the reactor is gi ing a gift of cheap electricit to the ne t generation. Because such altruism is not likel to dri e in estment, the task becomes to de elop accounting or funding methods that ill make it possible to build the generation capacit that ill e entuall be a irtuall permanent part of societ 's infrastructure.
If the onl benefit of these reactors is to produce less e pensi e electricit and the market is the onl force dri ing in estment, then e ill not see a massi e in estment in nuclear po er. But if immortal reactors b their er nature ser e purposes that fall outside of the market econom , their original capital cost can be handled in the a that societ pa s for infrastructure.
Such a purpose has emerged in recent ears: the need to limit CO2 emissions to protect against climate change. To a remarkable degree, the incenti e to go nuclear has shifted from meeting future energ demand to controlling CO2. At an e tremel lo price, electricit uses could e pand to include acti ities such as electrol sis to produce h drogen. If the
purpose of building reactors is CO2 control rather than producing electricit , then the issue of going nuclear is no longer a matter of simple economics. Just as the Tennessee Valle Authorit 's (TVA's) s stem of dams is justified b the public good of flood control, the s stem of reactors ould be justified b the public good of CO2 control. And just as TVA is h :// .i e . g/19.4/ ei be g.h under ritten b the go ernment, the future e pansion of nuclear 2/4 1/23/2014 I e i S a d T, S e 2003, Ne Life f N c ea P e under ritten b the go ernment, the future e pansion of nuclear energ could, at the er least, be financed b federall guaranteed loans. Larr Foulke, president of the American Nuclear Societ , has proposed the creation of an Energ Independence Securit Agenc , hich ould under rite the construction of nuclear reactors hose primar purpose is to control CO2.
Making a significant contribution to CO2 control ould require a roughl 10-fold increase in the orld's nuclear capacit . Pro iding fissile material to fuel these thousands of reactors for an indefinite period ould require the use of breeder reactors, a technolog that is alread a ailable; or the e traction of uranium from sea ater, a technolog et to be de eloped.
Is the ision of a orld ide s stem of as man as 4,000 reactors to be taken seriousl ? In 1944, Enrico Fermi himself arned that the future of nuclear energ depended on the public's acceptance of an energ source encumbered b radioacti it and closel linked to the production of nuclear eapons. A are of these concerns, the earl ad ocates of nuclear po er formulated the Acheson-Lilienthal plan, hich called for rigorous control of all nuclear acti ities b the International Atomic Energ Agenc (IAEA). But is this enough to make the public illing to accept 4,000 large reactors? Princeton Uni ersit 's Harold Fei eson has alread said that he ould rather forego nuclear energ than accept the risk of nuclear eapons proliferation in a 4,000-reactor orld.
I cannot concede that our ingenuit is unequal to li ing in a 4,000-reactor orld. With thoughtful planning, e could manage the risks. I imagine ha ing about 500 nuclear parks, each of hich ould ha e up to 10 reactors plus reprocessing facilities. The parks ould be regulated and guarded b a much- strengthened IAEA.
What about the possibilit of another Chernob l? Certainl toda 's reactors are safer than esterda 's, but the possibilit of an accident is real. Last ear, alarming corrosion as found at Ohio's Da is Besse plant, apparentl the result of a breakdo n in the management and operating practices at the plant. Chernob l and Da is Besse illustrate the point of Fermi's arning: Although nuclear energ has been a successful technolog that no pro ides 20 percent of U.S. electricit , it is a demanding technolog .
In addition to the risk of accidents, e face a gro ing possibilit that nuclear material could fall into the hands of rogue states or terrorist groups and be used to create nuclear eapons. I disagree ith Fei eson's conclusion that this risk is too great to bear. I belie e that e can pro ide adequate securit for 500 nuclear parks. h :// .i e . g/19.4/ ei be g.h 3/4 1/23/2014 I e i S a d T, S e 2003, Ne Life f N c ea P e
Is all this the fantas of an aging nuclear pioneer? Possibl so. In an case, I on't be around to see ho the 21st centur deals ith CO2 and nuclear energ . Ne ertheless, this much seems clear: If e are to establish a proliferation-proof fleet of 500 nuclear parks, e ill ha e to e pand on the Acheson-Lillienthal plan in a s that ill--as George Schult obser ed in 1989-- require all nations to relinquish some national so ereignt .
A i M. Wei be g i a f e di ec f he Oak Ridge Na i a Lab a .
Cop right 2007. Uni ersit of Te as at Dallas. All rights reser ed. 800 W Campbell Road, Richardson, TX 75080-3021. Terms of Use and Pri ac Statement
h :// .i e . g/19.4/ ei be g.h 4/4 LAZARD'S LEVELIZED COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS VERSION 7.0 Capital Cost Comparison While capital costs for a number of Alternative Energy generation technologies (e.g., solar PV, solar thermal) are currently in excess of some conventional generation technologies (e.g., gas), declining costs for many Alternative Energy generation technologies, coupled with rising long-term construction and uncertain long-term fuel costs for conventional generation technologies, are working to close formerly wide gaps in electricity costs. This assessment, however, does not take into account issues such as dispatch characteristics, capacity factors, fuel and other costs needed to compare generation technologies
Solar PV Crystalline Rooftop $3,000 $3,500 Solar PV Crystalline Utility Scale (a) $1,500(b) $1,750 $2,000 Solar PV Thin-film Utility Scale (c) $1,500(b) $1,750 $2,000 Solar Thermal (d) $5,600 $9,000 Fuel Cell $3,800 $5,000 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY(a) Microturbine $2,300 $3,800 Geothermal $4,600 $7,250 Biomass Direct $3,000 $4,000 Wind $1,500 $2,000 $4,050(e) Battery Storage (f) $400 $750 Diesel Generator $500 $800 Gas Peaking $800 $1,000 (g) IGCC $4,000 $6,821(h) $7,500 CONVENTIONAL Nuclear $5,385 $7,591(i) $8,199 (j) Coal $3,000 $8,400 Gas Combined Cycle $1,006 $1,318 $2,467(k) $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 Source: Lazard estimates. Capital Cost ($/kW) (a) High end represents single-axis tracking. Low end represents fixed-tilt installation. (b) Diamonds represent estimated capital costs in 2015, assuming $1.50 per watt for a crystalline single-axis tracking system and $1.50 per watt for a thin-film single-axis tracking system. (c) High end represents single-axis tracking. Low end represents fixed-tilt installation. (d) Low end represents solar tower without storage. High end represents solar tower with storage capability. (e) Represents estimated midpoint of capital costs for offshore wind, assuming a range of $3.10 $5.00 per watt. (f) Indicative range based on current and future stationary storage technologies. (g) High end incorporates 90% carbon capture and compression. Does not include cost of transportation and storage. (h) Represents estimate of current U.S. new IGCC construction with carbon capture and compression. Does not include cost of transportation and storage. (i) Represents estimate of current U.S. new nuclear construction. (j) Based on advanced supercritical pulverized coal. High end incorporates 90% carbon capture and compression. Does not include cost of transportation and storage. (k) Incorporates 90% carbon capture and compression. Does not include cost of transportation and storage. 8 Copyright 2013 Lazard. No part of this material may be copied, photocopied or duplicated in any form by any means or redistributed without the prior consent of Lazard. 1/16/2014 A a i : 50% Red c i I C Of Re e ab e E e g Si ce 2008
GO SOLAR SHOP ENERG SMART ELECTRIC CARS SOLAR PO ER IND PO ER 100% RENE ABLE ENERG ? BU ADS SPONSOR A POST
B T A a : 50% Red c I C C T #1 c ea ech- f c ed eb e . Of Re e ab e E e g S ce D C N E 2008 A C ea Tech ca S e 168 305 65 3 1 945 S a E e g Ne Share Tweet Sha e W d E e g Ne
E ec c Veh c e Ne R - , . B . C !
T (LCOE) A 50% , La a d Le eli ed C f Ene g Follow @cleantechnica 18.6K f e Anal i 7.0, L F & C . Like Share 10,245 e le like hi . Be he fi f f ie d .
L LCOE f a e e ab e e e g ech g e (M ) , US , , , .
Clea Tech ica
F ll +1
C T S U LCOE US L
U -Sca e S a , W d Lead LCOE Cha ge
T LCOE , - .
A , - a h a c (PV) d e e g LCOE h ://c ea ech ica.c /2013/09/11/a a i -50- ed c i -i -c - f- e e ab e-e e g - i ce-2008/ 1/8 LAZARD'S LEVELIZED COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS VERSION 7.0 Unsubsidized Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison Certain Alternative Energy generation technologies are cost-competitive with conventional generation technologies under some scenarios, before factoring in environmental and other externalities (e.g., RECs, transmission and back-up generation/system reliability costs) as well as construction and fuel cost dynamics affecting conventional generation technologies
Solar PV Crystalline Rooftop $149 $204 Solar PV Crystalline Utility Scale (b) $68 (c) $91 $104 Solar PV Thin-film Utility Scale (d) $64 (c) $89 $99 Solar Thermal (e) $125 $164 Fuel Cell $109 $206 ALTERNATIVE Microturbine $102 $135 ENERGY(a) Geothermal $89 $142 Biomass Direct $87 $116 Wind $45 $95 $155(f) Energy Efficiency (g) $0 $50 Battery Storage (h) $216 $329 Diesel Generator (i) $297 $332 Gas Peaking $179 $230 (j) IGCC $95 $141(k) $154 (l) CONVENTIONAL Nuclear $86 $115(m) $122 (n) Coal $65 $145 Gas Combined Cycle $61 $87 $127(o) $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 Levelized Cost ($/MWh) Source: Lazard estimates. Note: Assumes 60% debt at 8% interest rate and 40% equity at 12% cost for conventional and Alternative Energy generation technologies. Assumes Powder River Basin coal price of $1.99 per MMBtu and natural gas price of $4.50 per MMBtu. As many have argued, current solar pricing trends may be masking material differences between the inherent economics of certain types of thin-film technologies and crystalline silicon. Denotes distributed generation technology. (a) Analysis excludes integration costs for intermittent technologies. A variety of studies suggest integration costs ranging from $2.00 to $10.00 per MWh. (b) Low end represents single-axis tracking. High end represents fixed-tilt installation. Assumes 10 MW system in high insolation jurisdiction (e.g., Southwest U.S.). Not directly comparable for baseload. (c) Diamonds represent estimated implied levelized cost of energy in 2015, assuming $1.50 per watt for a crystalline single-axis tracking system and $1.50 per watt for a thin-film single-axis tracking system. (d) Low end represents single-axis tracking. High end represents fixed-tilt installation. Assumes 10 MW fixed-tilt installation in high insolation jurisdiction (e.g., Southwest U.S.). (e) Low end represents solar tower without storage. High end represents solar tower with storage capability. (f) Represents estimated midpoint of levelized cost of energy for offshore wind, assuming a range of $3.10 $5.00 per watt. (g) Estimates per National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency; actual cost for various initiatives varies widely. Estimates involving demand response may fail to account for opportunity cost of foregone consumption. (h) Indicative range based on current and future stationary storage technologies; assumes capital costs of $400 $750/KWh for 6 hours of storage capacity, $60/MWh cost to charge, one full cycle per day (full charge and discharge), efficiency of 66% 75% and fixed O&M costs of $5 to $20 per KWh installed per year. (i) Low end represents continuous operation. High end represents intermittent operation. Assumes diesel price of $4.00 per gallon. (j) High end incorporates 90% carbon capture and compression. Does not include cost of transportation and storage. (k) Represents estimate of current U.S. new IGCC construction with carbon capture and compression. Does not include cost of transportation and storage. (l) Does not reflect decommissioning costs or potential economic impact of federal loan guarantees or other subsidies. (m) Represents estimate of current U.S. new nuclear construction. (n) Based on advanced supercritical pulverized coal. High end incorporates 90% carbon capture and compression. Does not include cost of transportation and storage. (o) Incorporates 90% carbon capture and compression. Does not include cost of transportation and storage. 2 Copyright 2013 Lazard. No part of this material may be copied, photocopied or duplicated in any form by any means or redistributed without the prior consent of Lazard. Shale & renewables: a symbiotic relationship 12 September 2012 Citi Research
Figure 6. Solar is already competitive vs. domestic electricity prices for Figure 7. Wind has a tougher benchmark – it has to compete with low many countries, with many more to follow soon wholesale prices, but is very nearly there without subsidies
40.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2008 2010 2012 2016 2020 12 35.00
Germany 30.00 Italy 10 Spain Italy 25.00
Portugal 8 Japan 20.00 Japan Australia Spain Brazil UK 2009 LOCE (c/kWh) LOCE
US (S. West) LOCE (c/kWh) Germany 15.00 South Korea 6 France 2012 UK 2012 China Canada 2020 10.00 Argentina US 4 Russia 2020 Australia 5.00 India Saudi Arabia China Saudi Arabia Russia 0.00 2 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 18% 23% 28% 33% 38% Insolation (kWh/kW/yr) Capacity factor
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Citi Research Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Citi Research
Solar and wind are at parity or nearly What is clear is that the perception of renewable technologies as being inefficient there in many countries… and requiring material subsidies is no longer accurate. Solar is already cheaper than electricity at the plug in many countries, with others very close behind, and while wind has a tougher deal having to compete with lower wholesale (rather than domestic) prices, it too is nearly there without subsidies.
...and can even compete with gas in a But surely they can’t compete with shale? We have analysed in detail the impact of growing number of countries gas costs (and hence shale) on the price of electricity generated from CCGTs, and then combined this with the renewable experience curve cost analysis. Reproducing the curves for different levels of wind and solar resource (i.e. by country) results in cost crossover charts below, which effectively show in what year solar and wind become competitive with CCGTs for a range of gas prices.
Figure 8. Wind is already cheaper than CCGT electricity in high-priced Figure 9. Utility scale solar competes now with CCGTs in sunny/high- gas markets, and in windier regions can compete with cheap shale priced gas regions, and will soon approach cheap shale
Insolation (kwH/kW/yr) Capacity factor 15.00 900 1100 1300 1500 20% 24% 28% 32% 36% 40% 23.00 1700 1900 2100
13.00 at natural gas price ($/MMBtu): 15 18.00 11.00 at natural gas price ($/MMBtu): 19 11 9.00 13.00 15 LCOE (c/kWh) LCOE (c/kWh) 7.00 7 11 8.00 5.00 7 3 3 3.00 3.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source: Citi Research Source: Citi Research So what does all this analysis mean? Put simply, vast cost reductions have made renewables already competitive vs. other energy sources in many parts of the world, and the fast learning rates mean that by 2020, renewables will be ‘cutting it’ in most parts of the world. So, we should view shale not as the demise of renewables, but rather as a lower-carbon transition fuel to a new age of renewables, which then itself requires greater use of gas peaking plant (replacing baseload).
5 Shale & renewables: a symbiotic relationship 12 September 2012 Citi Research
When will renewables be cost-competitive with gas-fired power? Whether the shale gas boom is a threat to investment in renewable energy depends, to a large degree, on the cost-competitiveness of renewable energy with gas-fired power. In order for gas-fired power to establish its credentials as a ‘bridge-fuel’ to a low-carbon future, it must offer significant cost advantages over renewables.
Renewable energy has reduced in cost The perception of renewables as an expensive source of electricity is largely dramatically, and should be competitive obsolete, given the huge cost reductions achieved in recent years. Residential solar with gas-fired generation in many PV has already reached ‘grid parity’ in regions of high solar insolation, with much of regions in the medium term the world set to follow by 2020. Our view is that utility-scale renewables will be competitive with gas-fired power in the short to medium term, with the exact ‘crossover’ points varying from country to country. In many regions, we believe competitiveness will be achieved by 2020.
Assessing competitiveness
To assess the competitiveness of solar power compared to gas-fired power, we use the ‘levelised cost of electricity’ (LCOE) as the relevant comparator. The LCOE quantifies the average cost of producing a unit of electricity from different sources of power.
To assess the LCOE of solar and wind power, the key input assumptions are 1. The system costs of the solar/wind installation; and 2. The quality and quantity of the solar/wind resource at the location of the installation – for solar this is measured by the solar insolation; for wind this is measured by the capacity factor, with secondary input assumptions on the life-time of the wind/solar installation, operating costs (opex), degradation rate (only for solar) and the IRR. To assess the LCOE of gas-fired power, the key input assumption is the natural gas costs for the power plant, with secondary input assumptions on the fixed and variable opex, the carbon price, the life-time of the gas-fired power plant and the assumed IRR. In order to project LCOEs for solar, wind and gas-fired power forward into the future, we need to forecast both future system costs for a solar/wind plant and give scenarios for possible future natural gas costs. How is LCOE calculated?
The LCOE is a measurement of the average cost of producing a unit of electricity over the life- time of the generating source, in this case either a gas-fired power plant or a solar installation.
The LCOE considers, on the one hand, the total quantity of electricity produced by the source, and on the other, the costs that went into establishing the source over its life-time, including the original capital expenditure, ongoing maintenance costs, the cost of fuel and any carbon costs.
The LCOE also takes into account the financing costs of the project, both deducting the cost of debt (for an appropriate level of debt-financing) and ensuring that the project generates a reasonable internal rate of return (IRR) for the equity providers.
42 Correspondence/Rebuttal
pubs.acs.org/est
Comment on “Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power” ushker Kharecha and James Hansen have made a less costly than subsidizing the construction and operation of contribution in their article about the benefits of nuclear nuclear power plants”.13 Such reliance on subsidies caused P 1 power. However, issues of technology systems integration Peter Bradford, a former regulator at the NRC, to observe that deserve added attention as well as addressing a few errors. the best way to phase out nuclear energy would be to simply Though there is some logic underpinning the notion that “do nothing”.14 New reactors today never prevail in competitive nuclear power can mitigate greenhouse gas emissions as a power procurement processes anywhere in the world. “stabilization wedge”,2 we argue that (a) its near-term potential Furthermore, these are only the direct financial costs of fi ffi is signi cantly limited compared to energy e ciency and nuclear powerthey do not include serious environmental renewable energy; (b) it displaces emissions and saves lives degradation from uranium mining and milling,15 nor do they only at high cost and at the enhanced risk of nuclear weapons factor in the water intensity of nuclear power and its inability to proliferation; (c) it is unsuitable for expanding access to operate during water shortages and droughts.16 In fact, modern energy services in developing countries; and (d) the according to the NRC’s S3 table on impacts of the nuclear authors’ estimates of cancer risks from exposure to radiation are fuel cycle, by far the largest public exposure to radiation comes flawed. from the radon released by uranium mining and mill tailings. First, nuclear power reactors are less effective at displacing The authors exclude macroeconomic property damage and ffi greenhouse gas emissions than energy e ciency initiatives and evacuation costs from accidents such as Chernobyl and renewable energy technologies. According to one early study, Fukushima.17 Kharecha and Hansen ignore the serious issue each dollar invested in energy efficiency displaces nearly 7 times 18 19 3 of nuclear waste storage, and that of nuclear proliferation. as much carbon dioxide as a dollar invested in nuclear power. To date, several countries have tried or succeeded in developing McKinsey & Company’s cost abatement curves have repeatedly nuclear weapons under the guise of civilian nuclear weapons ffi a rmed this point, concluding that nuclear power is a programs. If we doubled the number of nuclear reactors fi signi cantly more expensive mitigation option than investments worldwide, many countries without weapons might obtain in efficiency, waste recycling, geothermal, and small hydro- 4 them. There is no such catastrophic risk associated with electric dams, among others. efficiency and renewables. Part of the explanation is that some countries enrich uranium fi Third, nuclear power as currently structured is nonviable for with coal- red power and have low reactor capacity factors, most emerging economies and developing countries. Small meaning the greenhouse gas emissions from their lifecycle can 5 island developing states such as Fiji or the Maldives, and least rival that of natural gas. Another part of the explanation is that developed countries such as Bhutan or Mali, have entire nuclear power plants have substantial opportunity costs electricity sectors with only a few hundred million dollars of construction delays, cost overruns, and the likethat add to fi fl 6 investment and small amounts of installed capacity. How are their carbon footprints gures re ected in Table 1 below. they to afford the billions needed for a commercial reactor? According to this table, on a lifecycle equivalent carbon dioxide ff Moreover, corruption and challenges in securing nuclear power basis wind energy is twenty four times as e ective at displacing establishments in some nations radically elevate the risk of emissions per kWh and hydroelectricity is roughly twice as terrorists gaining access to nuclear materials. The best energy effective. option for these countries is to expand access to improved Second, even if nuclear energy could save lives, it does so at a cookstoves, microhydro dams, solar home systems, and substantially higher financial, environmental, and political cost microgrids 20 rather than nuclear technology. For instance, in than alternatives. As Table 1 also reveals, when recent marginal India $2 billion can be spent on a single new nuclear reactor, or capital and levelized costs are factored in for the United States, it could provide 114 million households at the “bottom of the wind energy is 96 times more effective at displacing carbon pyramid” with solar lanterns, cookstoves, and small hydropower than nuclear power; other renewable sources range from about 21 20 times to twice as effective. Indeed, The U.S. Congressional systems. ffi Fourthly, Kharecha and Hansen have chosen to go against Budget O ce estimated nuclear power plant construction costs fi from 1966 to 1977, when most light water reactors in the U.S. the prevailing scienti c consensus and chosen to use the lowest were built, and found that the quoted cost for these 75 plants possible estimates of Chernobyl mortalities, unhinging their was $89.1 billion, but the real cost was $283.3 billion.7 These conclusions. For sure, there are uncertainties involved, but as cost overruns have every likelihood of affecting future the 2006 report of UNSCEAR concluded, “the inability to plants.8−11 detect increases in risks at very low doses using epidemiological fi methods does not mean that the cancer risks are not Nuclear power therefore needs signi cant subsidies in order 22 to “compete” in the marketplace.12 Douglas Koplow looked at elevated”. The U.S. National Research Council’s Committee five decades worth of subsidies data and concluded that to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of “subsidies to the nuclear fuel cycle have often exceeded the Ionizing Radiation (BEIR Committee) went a step further. value of the power produced. This means that buying power on the open market and giving it away for free would have been Published: May 22, 2013
© 2013 American Chemical Society 6715 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es401667h | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 6715−6717 1/16/2014 PART-I-Agi g-N ke
AP I a AP V A c
HOME COMPANY MEDIA CENTER PRODUCTS & SERVICES CONTACT US Sea ch AP.O g
AWARDS
P
P A a PART I: AP IMPACT: US nuke regulators weaken safet rules
NYPD P b
h :// .a . g/c m a /a a d / a -i-agi g- ke 1/9 1/16/2014 PART-I-Agi g-N ke
h :// .a . g/c m a /a a d / a -i-agi g- ke 2/9 1/16/2014 PART-I-Agi g-N ke
h :// .a . g/c m a /a a d / a -i-agi g- ke 3/9 1/16/2014 PART-I-Agi g-N ke
h :// .a . g/c m a /a a d / a -i-agi g- ke 4/9 1/16/2014 PART-I-Agi g-N ke
h :// .a . g/c m a /a a d / a -i-agi g- ke 5/9 1/16/2014 PART-I-Agi g-N ke
h :// .a . g/c m a /a a d / a -i-agi g- ke 6/9 1/16/2014 PART-I-Agi g-N ke
h :// .a . g/c m a /a a d / a -i-agi g- ke 7/9 1/16/2014 PART-I-Agi g-N ke
h :// .a . g/c m a /a a d / a -i-agi g- ke 8/9 1/16/2014 PART-I-Agi g-N ke
COMPAN ASSOCIATED PRESS MEDIA CENTER CONTACT US FOLLO US
Ab U FAQ T & C M a C C ac U AP L a A a & R c P ac P R a C S H N Va a P c Ab S AP N P c T a I L a F I a AP E a I c a P D S c - b S Ma B a Ca N , c a a b - - c a a c T AP.
A c c 2013 A c a P . A .
h :// .a . g/c m a /a a d / a -i-agi g- ke 9/9 40 | UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
CHAPTER 3. TRENDS FROM NEAR-MISSES 2010-2012
This chapter describes our analysis of the data from the nuclear reactor near- misses reported in our 2010, 2011, and 2012 reports. As presented in Table 4, 56 near-misses were reported at 40 different reactors over this three year period. The number of reactors experiencing near-misses remained fairly constant year to year: 18 in 2010, 17 in 2011, and 16 in 2012.6 Over this three-year period, nearly 40 percent of U.S. reactors experienced a near-miss. That 56 near-misses occurred at 40 reactors means some reactors are repeat offenders. Table 4 shows that Wolf Creek tops the frequent offender list with four near-misses over three years. In fact, Wolf Creek experienced at least one near-miss each year. The Palisades and Fort Calhoun reactors tied for second with three near- misses in three years. From the glass half-full perspective, 64 of the nation’s 104 reactors did not experience a near-miss between 2010 and 2012. If performance during this three-year period is representative of overall industry performance, however, then it may only be a matter of time before near-misses occur at those reactors as well. The 2010-2012 data indicate the “average” reactor has a roughly one-in- six chance each year that it will experience a near-miss. With reactors originally licensed for 40 years and most being relicensed for an additional 20 years, that rate—if sustained—means the typical reactor could experience 7 near-misses over its 40-year lifetime and about 10 near-misses over 60 years. While none of the 56 near-misses over the past three years caused harm to workers or the public, the “safety pyramid” provides ample reason to
6 Numbering becomes cumbersome because nuclear plants can have multiple reactors, safety- and security-related events can affect one or all reactors at a plant, and some reactors experienced multiple events. Table 2 here and Table 4 later in the report attempt to clarify who had what near-miss. THE NRC AND NUCLEAR POWER SAFETY IN 2012: TOLERATING THE INTOLERABLE | 41
reduce their occurrence. Introduced by H. W. Heinrich in his 1931 book Industrial Accident Prevention, the safety pyramid explains the relationship between the numbers of accidents and their severity levels.7 As suggested by its name, the larger the base of minor accidents, the more often major accidents accidents will occur. By reducing the situations and behaviors that lead to near-misses, one reduces the number of minor accidents and serious accidents, too. To reduce the number of near-misses, the NRC should include in its special inspection team (SIT) and augmented inspection team (AIT) processes a formal evaluation of the agency’s baseline inspection effort. The baseline inspection effort covers the array of inspections conducted by the NRC at every nuclear plant in the country. When SITs and AITs report safety violations, the NRC should determine whether its baseline inspection effort could have, and should have, found the safety violations before they contributed to near-misses. The insights from the near-miss violations may enable the NRC to make adjustments in what its inspectors examine, how they examine it, and how often they examine it so as to become more likely to find violations, if they exist. More than two decades ago, the NRC and the nuclear industry undertook parallel efforts aimed at reducing the number of scrams, or unplanned reactor shut-downs, that were occurring. Those efforts were very successful. In 1988, the average reactor experienced about 2.5 unplanned shut-downs annually (NRC 1993). By 2011, the last year data were reported, the typical reactor experienced 0.4 unplanned shut-downs annually (NRC 2012o). In other words, the typical reactor went more than two years between unplanned shut-downs. With comparable attention to reducing the number of near-misses that are occurring, the NRC and the industry would likely achieve similar reductions. Or they can continue the status quo, hoping the plants reach the end of their operating licenses before their luck runs out.
7 See http://emeetingplace.com/safetyblog/2008/07/22/the-accident-pyramid/ for additional details. 42 | UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
“Unique Reactors” tracks the number of reactors experiencing near-misses. For example, Brunswick Unit 2 had a near-miss in 2010 and was counted among the unique reactors that year. When it experienced another near-miss in 2012, it was not counted as a unique reactor that year. 1/16/2014 Former NRC Chairman Sa s U.S. Nuclear Industr is "Going A a " - IEEE Spectrum
F e NRC C a a Sa U.S. N c ea I d G g A a
y Eli Strickl nd sted Oct M
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energ /nuclear/former-nrc-chairman-sa s-us-nuclear-industr -is-going-a a 1/2 1/16/2014 Former NRC Chairman Sa s U.S. Nuclear Industr is "Going A a " - IEEE Spectrum
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energ /nuclear/former-nrc-chairman-sa s-us-nuclear-industr -is-going-a a 2/2 1/16/2014 E -Reg a Sa N c ea Reac U ed S a e A e F a ed - NYT e .c
A il 8, 2013 B MATTHE L. ALD
MORE IN U.S. Read Mo e h :// . e .c /2013/04/09/ /e - eg a - a - c ea - eac - - ed- a e -a e-f a ed.h ?_ =0& age a ed= 1/2 1/16/2014 E -Reg a Sa N c ea Reac U ed S a e A e F a ed - NYT e .c
h :// . e .c /2013/04/09/ /e - eg a - a - c ea - eac - - ed- a e -a e-f a ed.h ?_ =0& age a ed= 2/2 1/17/2014 Fukushima is an ongoing arning to the orld on nuclear energ Am Goodman Comment is free theguardian.com
Sear ch
The impact of nuclear disasters can last for generations. Such man-made devastation offers a lesson to all of us
http:// .theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/16/fukushima-is-a- arning/print 1/4 1/17/2014 Fukushima is an ongoing arning to the orld on nuclear energ Am Goodman Comment is free theguardian.com
http:// .theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/16/fukushima-is-a- arning/print 2/4 1/17/2014 Fukushima is an ongoing arning to the orld on nuclear energ Am Goodman Comment is free theguardian.com
http:// .theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/16/fukushima-is-a- arning/print 3/4 1/17/2014 Fukushima is an ongoing arning to the orld on nuclear energ Am Goodman Comment is free theguardian.com
http:// .theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/16/fukushima-is-a- arning/print 4/4 1/23/2014 V ee C d ce Radia i M i i g Ma P e ia Ri k E e S ee i Ja a De c ac N !
h :// .de c ac . g/2014/1/17/ ee _c d ce_ adia i _ i i g_ _ a 1/6 1/23/2014 V ee C d ce Radia i M i i g Ma P e ia Ri k E e S ee i Ja a De c ac N !
h :// .de c ac . g/2014/1/17/ ee _c d ce_ adia i _ i i g_ _ a 2/6 1/23/2014 V ee C d ce Radia i M i i g Ma P e ia Ri k E e S ee i Ja a De c ac N !
h :// .de c ac . g/2014/1/17/ ee _c d ce_ adia i _ i i g_ _ a 3/6 1/23/2014 V ee C d ce Radia i M i i g Ma P e ia Ri k E e S ee i Ja a De c ac N !
h :// .de c ac . g/2014/1/17/ ee _c d ce_ adia i _ i i g_ _ a 4/6 1/23/2014 V ee C d ce Radia i M i i g Ma P e ia Ri k E e S ee i Ja a De c ac N !
h :// .de c ac . g/2014/1/17/ ee _c d ce_ adia i _ i i g_ _ a 5/6 1/23/2014 V ee C d ce Radia i M i i g Ma P e ia Ri k E e S ee i Ja a De c ac N !
h :// .de c ac . g/2014/1/17/ ee _c d ce_ adia i _ i i g_ _ a 6/6 Article
pubs.acs.org/est
Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, 2880 Broadway, New York, New York 10025, United States *S Supporting Information
ABSTRACT: In the aftermath of the March 2011 accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the future contribution of nuclear power to the global energy supply has become somewhat uncertain. Because nuclear power is an abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, it could make a large contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution. Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420 000−7.04 million deaths and 80−240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of unconstrained natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power.
fi ■ INTRODUCTION and the ve countries with the highest annual CO2 emissions in the last several years. In order, these top five CO emitters are It has become increasingly clear that impacts of unchecked 2 China, the United States, India, Russia, and Japan, accounting anthropogenic climate change due to greenhouse gas (GHG) for 56% of global emissions from 2009 to 2011.11 To estimate emissions from burning of fossil fuels could be catastrophic for historically prevented deaths and GHG emissions, we start with both human society and natural ecosystems (in ref 1, see data for global annual electricity generation by energy source Figures SPM.2 and 4.4) and that the key time frame for 2,3 from 1971 to 2009 (Figure 1). We then apply mortality and mitigating the climate crisis is the next decade or so. GHG emissions factors, defined respectively as deaths and Likewise, during the past decade, outdoor air pollution due emissions per unit electric energy generated, for relevant largely to fossil fuel burning is estimated to have caused over 1 4 electricity sources (Table 1). For the projection period 2010− million deaths annually worldwide. Nuclear energy (and other 2050, we base our estimates on recent (post-Fukushima) low-carbon/carbon-free energy sources) could help to mitigate 5 nuclear power trajectories given by the UN International both of these major problems. Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).6 The future of global nuclear power will depend largely on choices made by major energy-using countries in the next 6 METHODS decade or so. While most of the highly nuclear-dependent ■ countries have affirmed their plans to continue development of Calculation of Prevented Mortality and GHG Impacts. nuclear power after the Fukushima accident, several have For the historical period 1971−2009, we assume that all nuclear announced that they will either temporarily suspend plans for power supply in a given country and year would instead have new plants or completely phase out existing plants.2 Serious been delivered by fossil fuels (specifically coal and natural gas), questions remain about safety, proliferation, and disposal of given their worldwide dominance and the very small radioactive waste, which we have discussed in some detail contribution of nonhydro renewables to world electricity thus elsewhere.7 far (Figure 1). There are of course numerous complications Here, we examine the historical and potential future role of involved in trying to design such a replacement scenario (e.g., nuclear power with respect to prevention of air pollution- evolving technological and socioeconomic conditions), and the related mortality as well as GHG emissions on multiple spatial scales. Previous studies have quantified global-scale avoided Received: December 14, 2012 GHG emissions due to nuclear power (e.g., refs 5 and 8−10); Revised: March 1, 2013 however, the issue of avoided human deaths remains largely Accepted: March 15, 2013 unexplored. We focus on the world as a whole, OECD Europe, Published: March 15, 2013
© 2013 American Chemical Society 4889 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3051197 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 4889−4895 Environmental Science & Technology Article
Piii()xxCx= CF()× () (1)
where CFi and Ci denote the reactor capacity factor and net capacity, respectively, listed in Table 14 of ref 12. We then calculate f i(x), the CF-weighted proportion of generated power by each reactor:
fi ()xPxPx= i ()/∑ i () i (2)
Next, we calculate Fj(x), the total proportion of generated nuclear power replaced by power from fossil fuel j:
()j Fxj()= ∑ fi () x i (3) (j) where f i (x) simply denotes grouping of all the f i values by replacement fuel j. For reference, on the global scale, this yields Figure 1. World electricity generation by power source for 1971−2009 about 95% replacement by coal and 5% by gas in our baseline (data from ref 14). In the past decade (2000−2009), nuclear power historical scenario, which we suggest is plausible for the reasons provided an average 15% of world generation; coal, gas, and oil given in the Results and Discussion section. Lastly, we calculate provided 40%, 20%, and 6%, respectively; and renewables provided I(x, t), the annual net prevented impacts (mortality or GHG 16% (hydropower) and 2% (nonhydro). emissions) from nuclear power in country x and year t as follows: Table 1. Mortality and GHG Emission Factors Used in This a Study I(,)xt=Σjj [IF × Fx j () × nxt (,)] − IFn × nxt (,) (4) electricity b where IFj is the impact factor for fossil fuel j (from Table 1), source mean value (range) unit source n(x, t) is the nuclear power generation (in energy units; from coal 28.67 (7.15−114) deaths/TWh ref 16 refs 6 and 14), and IFn is the impact factor for nuclear power 77 (19.25−308) deaths/TWh ref 16 (China)c (from Table 1). Note that the first term in eq 4 reflects gross 1045 (909−1182) tCO2-eq/GWh ref 30 avoided impacts, while the second reflects direct impacts of natural gas 2.821 (0.7−11.2) deaths/TWh ref 16 nuclear power. 602 (386−818) tCO2-eq/GWh ref 30 For the projection period 2010−2050, using eq 4, we nuclear 0.074 (range not given) deaths/TWh ref 16 calculate human deaths and GHG emissions that could result if d 65 (10−130) tCO2-eq/GWh ref 34 all projected nuclear power production is canceled and again aMortality factors are based on analysis for Europe (except as replaced only by fossil fuels. Of course, some or most of this indicated) and represent the sum of accidental deaths and air hypothetically canceled nuclear power could be replaced by pollution-related effects in Table 2 of ref 16. They reflect impacts from power from renewables, which have generally similar impact all stages of the fuel cycle, including fuel extraction, transport, factors as nuclear (e.g., see Figure 2 of ref 7). Thus, our results transformation, waste disposal, and electricity transport. Their ranges fi for the projection period should ultimately be viewed as upper are 95% con dence intervals and represent deviation from the mean limits on potentially prevented impacts from future nuclear by a factor of ∼4. Mortality factor for coal is the mean of the factors for lignite and coal in ref 16. Mean values for emission factors are the power. We project annual nuclear power production in the regions midpoints of the ranges given in the sources. Water pollution is also a fi significant impact but is not factored into these values. Additional containing the top ve CO2-emitting countries and Western uncertainties and limitations inherent in these factors are discussed in Europe based on the regional decadal projections in Table 4 of b the text. TWh = terawatt hour; GWh = gigawatt hour; tCO2-eq = ref 6, which we linearly interpolate to an annual scale. To set c fi tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions. Range is not given in source for Fj(x) in eq 4, we consider two simpli ed cases for both the China, but for consistency with other factors, it is assumed to be 4 fi “ ” fi d global and regional scales. In the rst ( all coal ), Fj(x)is xed times lower and higher than the mean. Some authors contend the at 100% coal, and in the second (“all gas”), it is fixed at 100% upper limit is significantly higher, but their conclusions are based on 35 gas. This approach yields the full range of potentially prevented dubious assumptions. impacts from future nuclear power. It is taken here because of the lack of country-specific projections in ref 6 as well as the retroactive energy mix cannot be known with total accuracy and large uncertainty in determining which fossil fuel(s) could realism; thus, simplifying yet tenable assumptions are necessary replace future nuclear power, given recent trends in electricity and justified. production (Figure 1, Figure S3 [Supporting Information], and To determine the proportional substitution by coal and gas ref 14). in our baseline historical scenario, we first examine the world Methodological Limitations. The projections for nuclear nuclear reactor properties provided by IAEA.12 On the basis of power by IAEA6 assume essentially no climate-change typical international values for coal and gas capacity factors mitigation measures in the low-end case and aggressive (CFs),13 we then assume that each of the 441 reactors listed in mitigation measures in the high-end case. It is unclear which Table 14 of ref 12 with a CF of greater than 65% is replaced by path the world will follow; however, these IAEA projections do coal and each reactor with a CF of less than or equal to 65% is take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident. It fi replaced by gas. seems that, except possibly for Japan, the top ve CO2-emitting fi For each country x,we rst calculate Pi(x), the power (not countries are not planning a phase-down of pre-Fukushima energy) generated by each reactor i: plans for future nuclear power. For instance, China, India, and
4890 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3051197 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 4889−4895 Environmental Science & Technology Article
Figure 2. Cumulative net deaths prevented assuming nuclear power replaces fossil fuels. (a) Results for the historical period in this study (1971− 2009), showing mean values (labeled) and ranges for the baseline historical scenario. Results for (b) the high-end and (c) low-end projections of nuclear power production by the UN IAEA6 for the period 2010−2050. Error bars reflect the ranges for the fossil fuel mortality factors listed in Table 1. The larger columns in panels b and c reflect the all coal case and are labeled with their mean values, while the smaller columns reflect the all gas case; values for the latter are not shown because they are all simply a factor of ∼10 lower (reflecting the order-of-magnitude difference between the mortality factors for coal and gas shown in Table 1). Countries/regions are arranged in descending order of CO2 emissions in recent years. FSU15 = 15 countries of the former Soviet Union, and OECD = Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Russia have affirmed plans to increase their current nuclear such a transition are unlikely to be sufficient to minimize the capacity by greater than 3-fold, greater than 12-fold, and 2-fold, risk of dangerous anthropogenic climate change (unless the respectively (see Table 12.2 of ref 2). In Japan, the future of resulting emissions are captured and stored), as discussed in the nuclear power now seems unclear; in the fiscal year following next section. the Fukushima accident, nuclear power generation in Japan decreased by 63%, while fossil fuel power generation increased ■ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION by 26% (ref 15), thereby almost certainly increasing Japan’s Mortality. We calculate a mean value of 1.84 million human CO2 emissions. Although our analysis reflects mortality from all stages of the deaths prevented by world nuclear power production from fuel cycle for each energy source, it excludes serious illnesses, 1971 to 2009 (see Figure 2a for full range), with an average of including respiratory and cerebrovascular hospitalizations, 76 000 prevented deaths/year from 2000 to 2009 (range 19 fi chronic bronchitis, congestive heart failure, nonfatal cancers, 000−300 000). Estimates for the top ve CO2 emitters, along and hereditary effects. For fossil fuels, such illnesses are with full estimate ranges for all regions in our baseline historical estimated to be approximately 10 times higher than the scenario, are also shown in Figure 2a. For perspective, results mortality factors in Table 1, while for nuclear power, they are for upper and lower bound scenarios are shown in Figure S1 ∼3 times higher.16 Another important limitation is that the (Supporting Information). In Germany, which has announced mortality factors exclude the impacts of anthropogenic climate plans to shut down all reactors by 2022 (ref 2), we calculate change and development-related differences, as explained in the that nuclear power has prevented an average of over 117 000 Results and Discussion section. Aspects of nuclear power that deaths from 1971 to 2009 (range 29 000−470 000). The large cannot meaningfully be quantified due to very large ranges stem directly from the ranges given in Table 1 for the uncertainties (e.g., potential mortality from proliferation of mortality factors. weapons-grade material) are also not included in our analysis. Our estimated human deaths caused by nuclear power from Proportions of fossil fuels in our projection cases are 1971 to 2009 are far lower than the avoided deaths. Globally, assumed to be fixed (for the purpose of determining upper and we calculate 4900 such deaths, or about 370 times lower than lower bounds) but will almost certainly vary across years and our result for avoided deaths. Regionally, we calculate decades, as in the historical period (Figure 1). The dominance approximately 1800 deaths in OECD Europe, 1500 in the of coal in the global average electricity mix seems likely for the United States, 540 in Japan, 460 in Russia (includes all 15 near future though (e.g., Figure 5.2 of ref 2). However, even if former Soviet Union countries), 40 in China, and 20 in India. there is large-scale worldwide electric fuel switching from coal About 25% of these deaths are due to occupational accidents, to gas, our assessment is that the ultimate GHG savings from and about 70% are due to air pollution-related effects
4891 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3051197 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 4889−4895 Environmental Science & Technology Article
Figure 3. Cumulative net GHG emissions prevented assuming nuclear power replaces fossil fuels. Same panel arrangement as Figure 2, except mean values for all cases are labeled. Error bars reflect the ranges for the fossil fuel emission factors listed in Table 1.
(presumably fatal cancers from radiation fallout; see Table 2 of For the projection period 2010−2050, we find that, in the all ref 16). coal case (see the Methods section), an average of 4.39 million However, empirical evidence indicates that the April 1986 and 7.04 million deaths are prevented globally by nuclear power Chernobyl accident was the world’s only source of fatalities production for the low-end and high-end projections of IAEA,6 from nuclear power plant radiation fallout. According to the respectively. In the all gas case, an average of 420 000 and 680 latest assessment by the United Nations Scientific Committee 000 deaths are prevented globally (see Figure 2b,c for full on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR),17 43 deaths ranges). Regional results are also shown in Figure 2b,c. The Far are conclusively attributable to radiation from Chernobyl as of East and North America have particularly high values, given 2006 (28 were plant staff/first responders and 15 were from the that they are projected to be the biggest nuclear power 6000 diagnosed cases of thyroid cancer). UNSCEAR17 also producers (Figure S2, Supporting Information). As in the states that reports of an increase in leukemia among recovery historical period, calculated deaths caused by nuclear power in workers who received higher doses are inconclusive, although our projection cases are far lower (2 orders of magnitude) than cataract development was clinically significant in that group; the avoided deaths, even taking the nuclear mortality factor in otherwise, for these workers as well as the general population, Table 1 at face value (despite the discrepancy with empirical “there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health data discussed above for the historical period). 17 The substantially lower deaths in the projected all gas case effect” attributable to radiation exposure. follow simply from the fact that gas is estimated to have a Furthermore, no deaths have been conclusively attributed (in mortality factor an order of magnitude lower than coal (Table a scientifically valid manner) to radiation from the other two 1). However, this does not necessarily provide a valid argument major accidents, namely, Three Mile Island in March 1979, for for such large-scale “fuel switching” for mitigation of either which a 20 year comprehensive scientific health assessment was 18 climate change or air pollution, for several reasons. First, it is done, and the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident. While important to bear in mind that our results for prevented it is too soon to meaningfully assess the health impacts of the 19 mortality are likely conservative, because the mortality factors latter accident, one early analysis indicates that annual in Table 1 do not incorporate impacts of ongoing or future radiation doses in nearby areas were much lower than the 16 17 anthropogenic climate change. These impacts are likely to generally accepted 100 mSv threshold for fatal disease become devastating for both human health and ecosystems if development. In any case, our calculated value for global recent global GHG emission trends continue.1,3 Also, potential deaths caused by historical nuclear power (4900) could be a global natural gas resources are enormous; published estimates major overestimate relative to the empirical value (by 2 orders for technically recoverable unconventional gas resources of magnitude). The absence of evidence of large mortality from suggest a carbon content ranging from greater than 700 fi 20,21 past nuclear accidents is consistent with recent ndings that GtCO2 (based on refs 23 and 24) to greater than 17 000 the “linear no-threshold” model used to derive the nuclear GtCO2 (based on refs 24 and 25). While we acknowledge that mortality factor in Table 1 (see ref 22) might not be valid for natural gas might play an important role as a “transition” fuel to the relatively low radiation doses that the public was exposed to a clean-energy era due to its lower mortality (and emission) from nuclear power plant accidents. factor relative to coal, we stress that long-term, widespread use
4892 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3051197 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 4889−4895 Environmental Science & Technology Article of natural gas (without accompanying carbon capture and plants that meet domestic environmental standards have a storage) could lead to unabated GHG emissions for many mortality factor almost 3 times higher than the mean global decades, given the typically multidecadal lifetime of energy value (Table 1). These differences related to development infrastructure, thereby greatly complicating climate change status will become increasingly important as fossil fuel use and mitigation efforts. GHG emissions of developing countries continue to outpace GHG Emissions. We calculate that world nuclear power those of developed countries.11 generation prevented an average of 64 gigatonnes of CO2- On the other hand, if coal would not have been as dominant equivalent (GtCO2-eq), or 17 GtC-eq, cumulative emissions a replacement for nuclear as assumed in our baseline historical from 1971 to 2009 (Figure 3a; see full range therein), with an scenario, then our avoided historical impacts could be average of 2.6 GtCO2-eq/year prevented annual emissions from overestimates, since coal causes much larger impacts than gas 2000 to 2009 (range 2.4−2.8 GtCO2/year). Regional results are (Table 1). However, there are several reasons this is unlikely. also shown in Figure 3a. Our global results are 7−14% lower Key characteristics of coal plants (e.g., plant capacity, capacity than previous estimates8,9 that, among other differences, factor, and total production costs) are historically much more assumed all historical nuclear power would have been replaced similar to nuclear plants than are those of natural gas plants.13 only by coal, and 34% higher than in another study10 in which Also, the vast majority of existing nuclear plants were built the methodology is not explained clearly enough to infer the before 1990, but advanced gas plants that would be suitable basis for the differences. Given that cumulative and annual replacements for base-load nuclear plants (i.e., combined-cycle global fossil fuel CO2 emissions during the above periods were gas turbines) have only become available since the early 11 13 840 GtCO2 and 27 GtCO2/year, respectively, our mean 1990s. Furthermore, coal resources are highly abundant and estimate for cumulative prevented emissions may not appear widespread,24,25 and coal fuel and total production costs have substantial; however, it is instructive to look at other long been relatively low, unlike historically available gas quantitative comparisons. resources and production costs.13 Thus, it is not surprising For instance, 64 GtCO2-eq amounts to the cumulative CO2 that coal has been by far the dominant source of global emissions from coal burning over approximately the past 35 electricity thus far (Figure 1). We therefore assess that our years in the United States, 17 years in China, or 7 years in the baseline historical replacement scenario is plausible and that it fi 11 fi fi top ve CO2 emitters. Also, since a 500 MW coal- red power is not as signi cant an uncertainty source as the impact factors; 26 plant typically emits 3 MtCO2/year, 64 GtCO2-eq is that is, our avoided historical impacts are more likely equivalent to the cumulative lifetime emissions from almost underestimates, as discussed in the above paragraph. 430 such plants, assuming an average plant lifetime of 50 years. Implications. More broadly, our results underscore the It is therefore evident that, without global nuclear power importance of avoiding a false and counterproductive generation in recent decades,near-termmitigationof dichotomy between reducing air pollution and stabilizing the anthropogenic climate change would pose a much greater climate, as elaborated by others.27−29 If near-term air pollution challenge. abatement trumps the goal of long-term climate protection, For the projection period 2010−2050, in the all coal case, an governments might decide to carry out future electric fuel average of 150 and 240 GtCO2-eq cumulative global emissions switching in even more climate-impacting ways than we have are prevented by nuclear power for the low-end and high-end examined here. For instance, they might start large-scale projections of IAEA,6 respectively. In the all gas case, an average production and use of gas derived from coal (“syngas”), as coal of 80 and 130 GtCO2-eq emissions are prevented (see Figure is by far the most abundant of the three conventional fossil 3b,c for full ranges). Regional results are also shown in Figure fuels.24,25 While this could reduce the very high pollution- 3b,c. These results also differ substantially from previous related deaths from coal power (Figure 2), the GHG emissions studies,9,10 largely due to differences in nuclear power factor for syngas is substantially higher (between ∼5% and projections (see the Supporting Information). 90%) than for coal,30 thereby entailing even higher electricity To put our calculated overall mean estimate (80−240 sector GHG emissions in the long term. GtCO2-eq) of potentially prevented future emissions in In conclusion, it is clear that nuclear power has provided a perspective, note that, to achieve a 350 ppm CO2 target near large contribution to the reduction of global mortality and the end of this century, cumulative “allowable” fossil CO2 GHG emissions due to fossil fuel use. If the role of nuclear fi emissions from 2012 to 2050 are at most ∼500 GtCO2 (ref 3). power signi cantly declines in the next few decades, the Thus, projected nuclear power could reduce the climate-change International Energy Agency asserts that achieving a target mitigation burden by 16−48% over the next few decades atmospheric GHG level of 450 ppm CO2-eq would require (derived by dividing 80 and 240 by 500). “heroic achievements in the deployment of emerging low- Uncertainties. Our results contain various uncertainties, carbon technologies, which have yet to be proven. Countries primarily stemming from our impact factors (Table 1) and our that rely heavily on nuclear power would find it particularly assumed replacement scenarios for nuclear power. In reality, challenging and significantly more costly to meet their targeted the impact factors are not likely to remain static, as we levels of emissions.”2 Our analysis herein and a prior one7 (implicitly) assumed; for instance, emission factors depend strongly support this conclusion. Indeed, on the basis of heavily on the particular mix of energy sources. Because our combined evidence from paleoclimate data, observed ongoing impact factors neglect ongoing or projected climate impacts as climate impacts, and the measured planetary energy imbalance, well as the significant disparity in pollution between developed it appears increasingly clear that the commonly discussed and developing countries,16 our results for both avoided GHG targets of 450 ppm and 2 °C global temperature rise (above emissions and avoided mortality could be substantial under- preindustrial levels) are insufficient to avoid devastating climate estimates. For example, in China, where coal burning accounts impacts; we have suggested elsewhere that more appropriate for over 75% of electricity generation in recent decades (ref 14; targets are less than 350 ppm and 1 °C (refs 3 and 31−33). Figure S3, Supporting Information), some coal-fired power Aiming for these targets emphasizes the importance of retaining
4893 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3051197 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 4889−4895 Environmental Science & Technology Article and expanding the role of nuclear power, as well as energy (8) Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. efficiency improvements and renewables, in the near-term Nuclear Energy and Addressing Climate Change, 2009. http://www. global energy supply. oecd-nea.org/press/in-perspective/addressing-climate-change.pdf (ac- cessed February 2012). ■ ASSOCIATED CONTENT (9) Lenzen, M.; Schaeffer, R. Historical and potential future contributions of power technologies to global warming. Clim. Change *S Supporting Information 2012, 112, 601−632. Comparison with avoided GHG emissions in projection (10) Coleman, N. M.; Abramson, L. R.; Coleman, F. A. B. Estimated periods of prior studies; figures showing upper and lower lag time in global carbon emissions and CO2 concentrations produced bounds for prevented deaths and GHG emissions assuming by commercial nuclear power through 2009 with projections through nuclear power replaces fossil fuels from 1971−2009, projec- 2030. Health Phys. 2012, 102, 326−334. tions of nuclear power production by region, and total (11) Boden, T. A.; Marland, G.; Andres, R. J. Global, Regional, and electricity production from 1971−2009 by fuel source for the National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions; Carbon Dioxide Information top five CO -emitting countries and OECD Europe. This Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department 2 of Energy: Oak Ridge, TN, 2012; DOI: 10.3334/CDIAC/ material is available free of charge via the Internet at http:// 00001_V2012. pubs.acs.org. (12) International Atomic Energy Agency. Nuclear Power Reactors in the World: 2011 Edition. http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/ ■ AUTHOR INFORMATION iaeabooks/8752/Nuclear-Power-Reactors-in-the-World-2011-Edition Corresponding Author (accessed July 2012). *Phone: (212) 678-5536; fax: (212) 678-5552; e-mail: (13) See individual technology briefs for coal, gas, and nuclear power pushker@giss.nasa.gov. by the International Energy Agency- Energy Technology Systems Analysis Program (IEA-ETSAP), available at http://www.iea-etsap. Author Contributions org/web/E-techDS.asp (accessed July 2012). P.K. designed the study with input from J.H.; P.K. performed (14) IEA World Energy Statistics and Balances, database; International the calculations and analysis and wrote the paper with feedback Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2010; DOI: 10.1787/data-00512-en. from J.H. (15) Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan. Electricity Generated and Purchased in FY 2011. http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/ Notes fi fi fi news/generated_purchased/__icsFiles/a eld le/2012/04/19/ The authors declare no competing nancial interest. hatsuju_E_FY2011.pdf (accessed September 2012). (16) Markandya, A.; Wilkinson, P. Electricity generation and health. ■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Lancet 2007, 370, 979−990. We thank Chuck Kutscher of the U.S. DOE National (17) United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Annex D: Health Renewable Energy Laboratory for helpful comments on our ff methodology and three anonymous reviewers for helpful E ects due to Radiation from the Chernobyl Accident. http://www. feedback on our manuscript. Funding for this work was unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D. pdf (accessed August 2011). provided by the Lenfest Foundation and the Columbia (18) Talbott, E. O.; Youk, A. O.; McHugh-Pemu, K. P.; Zborowski, J. University−NASA Cooperative Agreement (award V. Long-term follow-up of the residents of the Three Mile Island NNX11AR63A). accident area: 1979−1998. Environ. Health Perspect. 2003, 111, 341− 348. ■ REFERENCES (19) Kinoshita, N.; Sueki, K.; Sasa, K.; Kitagawa, J.; Ikarashi, S.; (1) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Nishimura, T.; Wong, Y.-S.; Satou, Y.; Handa, K.; Takahashi, T.; Sato, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report M.; Yamagata, T. Assessment of individual radionuclide distributions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); Parry, M. form the Fukushima nuclear accident covering central-east Japan. Proc. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., van der Linden, J., Hanson, C. E., Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108, 19526−19529. Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K., 2007. (20) Tanooka, H. Meta-analysis of non-tumour doses for radiation- (2) World Energy Outlook 2011;OECD/InternationalEnergy induced cancer on the basis of dose-rate. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2011, 87, Agency: Paris, France, 2011. 645−652. (3) Hansen, J.; Kharecha, P.; Sato, M.; Ackerman, F.; Beerling, D.; (21) Neumaier, T.; Swenson, J.; Pham, C.; Polyzos, A.; Lod, A. T.; Hearty, P. J.; Hoegh-Guldberg, O.; Hsu, S.-L.; Parmesan, C.; Yang, P.; Dyball, J.; Asaithamby, A.; Chen, D. J.; Bissell, M. J.; Rockstrom, J.; Rohling, E. J.; Sachs, J.; Smith, P.; Steffen, K.; Van Thalhammer, A.; Costes, S. V. Evidence for formation of DNA repair Susteren, L.; von Schuckmann, K.; Zachos, J. C.; et al. Scientific centers and dose-response nonlinearity in human cells. Proc. Natl. prescription to avoid dangerous climate change to protect young Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, 109, 443−448. people, future generations, and nature. PLoS One 2013, submitted for (22) European Communities. ExternE: Externalities of Energy. publication. Methodology 2005 Update. http://www.externe.info/publications. (4) World Health Organization. Global Health Observatory Data html (accessed February 2012). Repository. http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.156 (accessed (23) OECD/International Energy Agency. Are We Entering a November 2012). Golden Age of Gas? Special Report, World Energy Outlook 2011. (5) International Atomic Energy Agency. Climate Change and http://www.iea.org/weo/docs/weo2011/WEO2011_ Nuclear Power 2011. http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/ GoldenAgeofGasReport.pdf (accessed June 2011). assets/11-43751_ccnp_brochure.pdf (accessed September 2012). (24) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation, Contribution of Working (6) International Atomic Energy Agency. Energy, Electricity and Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period up to 2050: 2011 Edition. Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); Metz, B., Davidson, O. R., Bosch, http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/RDS1_31.pdf P. R., Dave, R., Meyer, L. A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: (accessed January 2012). Cambridge, U.K., 2007. (7) Kharecha, P. A.; Kutscher, C. F.; Hansen, J. E.; Mazria, E. (25) International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Global Options for near-term phaseout of CO2 emissions from coal use in the Energy Assessment − Toward a Sustainable Future. http://www. United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 4050−4062. globalenergyassessment.org (accessed June 2012).
4894 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3051197 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 4889−4895 Environmental Science & Technology Article
(26) Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Future of Coal. http://web.mit.edu/coal (accessed December 2007). (27) Hansen, J.; Sato, M.; Ruedy, R.; Lacis, A.; Oinas, V. Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2000, 97, 9875−9880. (28) Ramanathan, V.; Feng, Y. Air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change: Global and regional perspectives. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43,37−50. (29) Shindell, D.; Kuylenstierna, J. C. I.; Vignati, E.; van Dingenen, R.; Amann, M.; Klimont, Z.; Anenberg, S. C.; Muller, N.; Janssens- Maenhout, G.; Raes, F.; Schwartz, J.; Faluvegi, G.; Pozzoli, L.; Kupiainen, K.; Höglund-Isaksson, L.; Emberson, L.; Streets, D.; Ramanathan, V.; Hicks, K.; Oanh, N. T. K.; Milly, G.; Williams, M.; Demkine, V.; Fowler, D. Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security. Science 2012, 335, 183−189. (30) Jaramillo, P.; Griffin, W. M.; Matthews, H. S. Comparative life- cycle air emissions of coal, domestic natural gas, LNG, and SNG for electricity generation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 6290−6296. (31) Hansen, J.; Sato, M.; Kharecha, P.; Beerling, D.; Berner, R.; Masson-Delmotte, V.; Pagani, M.; Raymo, M.; Royer, D. L.; Zachos, J. C. Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? Open Atmos. Sci. J. 2008, 2, 217−231. (32) Rockstrom, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, A.; Chapin, F. S.; Lambin, E., III; Lenton, T. M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.; Nykvist, B.; De Wit, C. A.; Hughes, T.; van der Leeuw, S.; Rodhe, H.; Sorlin, S.; Snyder, P. K.; Costanza, R.; Svedin, U.; Falkenmark, M.; Karlberg, L.; Corell, R. W.; Fabry, V. J.; Hansen, J.; Walker, B.; Liverman, D.; Richardson, K.; Crutzen, P.; Foley, J. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 2009, 461, 472−475. (33) Hansen, J.; Sato, M.; Kharecha, P.; von Schuckmann, K. Earth’s energy imbalance and implications. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2011, 11, 13421−13449. (34) Lenzen, M. Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: A review. Energy Convers. Manage. 2008, 49, 2178− 2199. (35) Lenzen, M. Current state of development of electricity- generating technologies: A literature review. Energies 2010, 3, 462− 591.
4895 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3051197 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 4889−4895